Cathy Harris's Workplace Blog

Pepsi Beverages Pays $3.1M in Racial Bias Case

2012-01-25T09:19:00.000-08:00

By Sam Hananel, Associated Press, Jan. 12, 2012

Pepsi Beverages Co. will pay $3.1 million to settle federal charges of race discrimination for using criminal background checks to screen out job applicants — even if they weren't convicted of a crime.

The settlement announced Wednesday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is part of a national government crackdown on hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics.

EEOC officials said the company's policy of not hiring workers with arrest records disproportionately excluded more than 300 black applicants. The policy barred applicants who had been arrested, but not convicted of a crime, and denied employment to others who were convicted of minor offenses.

Using arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal if it's irrelevant for the job, according to the EEOC, which enforces the nation's employment discrimination laws. The agency says such blanket policies can limit job opportunities for minorities with higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.

The company has since adopted a new criminal background policy and plans to make jobs available to victims of the old policy if they are still interested in jobs at Pepsi and are qualified for the openings.

"I commend Pepsi's willingness to reexamine its policy and modify it to ensure that unwarranted roadblocks to employment are removed," EEOC Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien said in a statement.

Pepsi Beverage spokesman Dave DeCecco said the company's criminal background check policy has always been neutral and that the EEOC did not find any intentional discrimination. He said after the issue was first raised in 2006, the company worked with the EEOC to revise its background check process "to create a workplace that is as diverse and inclusive as possible."

"We are committed to promoting diversity and inclusion and we have been widely recognized for our efforts for decades," DeCecco said.

He said the new policy would take a more "individualized approach" in considering the applicant's criminal history against the particular job being sought.

Pepsi Beverages is PepsiCo's beverage manufacturing, sales and distribution operating unit in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Under the settlement, the company will provide the EEOC with regular reports on its hiring practices and offer antidiscrimination training to its hiring personnel and managers.

About 73 percent of major employers report that they always check on applicants' criminal records, while 19 percent do so for select job candidates, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management.

But increased federal scrutiny of such policies has led some companies to reevaluate their hiring process. Pamela Devata, a Chicago employment lawyer who has represented companies trying to comply with EEOC's requirements, said there has been an uptick over the past year in EEOC charges over the use of background checks.

"The EEOC has taken a very aggressive enforcement posture on the use of criminal background and criminal history," Devata said.

The commission held a special meeting on the topic last summer, and Devata said employers have been expecting the EEOC to issue more specific guidance.

EEOC officials have said, for example, that an old drunken driving conviction may not be relevant to a clerical job, but a theft conviction may disqualify someone from working at a bank.

Julie Schmid, acting director of the EEOC's Minneapolis office, said the EEOC recommends that employers consider the nature and gravity of offenses, the time that has passed since conviction or completion of a sentence, and the nature of the job sought.

"We hope that employers with unnecessarily broad criminal background check policies take note of this agreement and reassess their policies to ensure compliance" with antidiscrimination laws, Schmid said in a written statement.

Calif. Car Washes Agree to $1 Million Back Pay Settlement

2012-01-19T13:00:00.000-08:00

January 12th, 2012 | Mike Hall

Eight California car washes agreed to an historic $1 million settlement with the state’s attorney general for routinely failing to pay minimum wage or overtime, creating false records of work hours and not paying money owed to employees who quit, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Workers at these car washes were taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers who illegally denied them the pay and benefits they earned. I am pleased that the resolution of this case will allow workers to receive the pay they are owed.

At least $800,000 of the settlement will go to workers who were underpaid, according to court records. Other parts of the settlement will pay taxes and penalties. Click here for a copy of the settlement agreement.

Two of the of the car washes in the agreement are Bonus Car Wash in Santa Monica and Marina Car Washin Venice, where workers fought and won recognition with United Steelworkers (USW) Local 675 last year. Says Local 75?s Dave Campbell:

We are glad that the Attorney General is taking seriously the issue of wage theft among car wash workers. Workers have been waiting to be made whole for past violations for years.

The workers there and at other Southern California carwashes came together in the CLEAN Carwash Campaign to fight for their rights. The CLEAN Carwash Campaign is a coalition supported by the USW, the AFL-CIO and more than 100 community, faith and labor organizations in Los Angeles. For more information, click here.

More good news from the Clean Carwash Campaign: the owner of Navas Car Wash in Marina Del Ray, the successor company to BJ Car Wash, agreed to respect and sign the union contract agreed to by the previous owner and ratified in early November.

This blog originally appeared in AFL-CIO Now blog on January 11, 2012. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Mike Hall is a former West Virginia newspaper reporter, staff writer for the United Mine Workers Journal and managing editor of the Seafarers Log. He came to the AFL- CIO in 1989 and has written for several federation publications, focusing on legislation and politics, especially grassroots mobilization and workplace safety. “When my collar was still blue, I carried union cards from the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, American Flint Glass Workers and Teamsters for jobs in a chemical plant, a mining equipment manufacturing plant and a warehouse. I’ve also worked as roadie for a small-time country-rock band, sold my blood plasma and played an occasional game of poker to help pay the rent. You may have seen me at one of several hundred Grateful Dead shows. I was the one with longhair and the tie-dye. Still have the shirts, lost the hair.”

Chicago Woman Fired for Doing Work at Lunch Wins Unemployment Claim

2012-01-17T14:41:00.000-08:00

By SUSANNA KIM (@skimm)

Jan. 17, 2012

Sharon Smiley had worked for 10 years as a receptionist and administrative assistant at a Chicago real estate company until she was fired for skipping lunch one day. After a two-year battle, an appeals court in Illinois has found that denial of her unemployment benefits was "clearly erroneous."

Smiley, 48, punched out of work for lunch Jan. 28, 2010, but remained at her desk to finish a project assigned by a manager because she did not plan to eat that day, she said.

Smiley, who had passed her 10-year anniversary with the company more than a month before, said another manager told her it was time for her to go to lunch and step away from her desk, but she refused. That manager observed Smiley working on a spreadsheet on her computer, answering the phone and responding to questions by people who approached her desk, according to a filing from the appellate court of Illinois.

Her former employer, Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc., did not return a request for comment.
The company's human resources director then became involved, explaining that hourly non-exempt employees were required to take a 30-minute lunch break, a policy that had been in the company handbook for 10 years, according to the filing. Not following the policy would be a violation of Illinois' labor laws, the HR director said.

The prominent location of Smiley's desk, "which was directly at the front door of the office, made this particularly important for her," according to the human resources director in the court filing. She and Smiley had "many discussions ... over her eating breakfast at her desk," the filing states.

"I knew you couldn't eat lunch at your desk," Smiley told ABC News. "I was under the impression that because I was punched out I could do what I want."

Smiley said her job had became so stressful that she suffered a stroke and was off work for almost three months, beginning July 13, 2009, according to the court filing.

Like several states, Illinois has a law that requires employers to provide employees a lunch break. But the law cannot be read to require an employer to fire a worker who refuses to take a break in order to finish her work, said Michael LeRoy, law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

"Nonetheless, Illinois is an employment-at-will state, which means the employer can fire someone for a good reason, no reason, or a bad reason, as long as it is not discriminatory," he said.

Companies often have policies that are designed to limit the number of hours employees can work in a given day or week, largely in order to avoid overtime pay obligations, Cheryl Anderson, law professor with Southern Illinois University School of Law, said. Such policies often require employer permission to work beyond an employee's regular scheduled hours.

After being fired, Smiley learned she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct connected with her work.

She appealed to the Illinois Department of Employment Security's board of review three times, was denied, then took her case to a circuit court. That court ruled Smiley, who did not challenge the firing, was eligible for benefits.

Smiley received a check with a lump sum on Nov. 28 for several months of unemployment, a percentage of her previous salary. Then she received a check every two weeks for $528 until she obtained her latest job last month.

The appellate court of Illinois affirmed the circuit court ruling Jan. 11, saying the "insubordination arose from [Smiley's] efforts to perform additional work for [her employer], beyond what was required of her," as first reported Monday in the Chicago Tribune.

"The insubordination occurred in a meeting with her superiors which lasted only four minutes," the court ruling stated.

The court ruling also said there was evidence that managers had been able to work with her in the past to perform new tasks with which she was uncomfortable.

An unemployed person in Illinois is qualified for unemployment unless there is misconduct, which "has been defined as conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests," according to the state's legal test in a ruling from the board of review.

"Workers generally have to be guilty of gross misconduct, which includes insubordination," professor Anderson said. "The bar is set high for the employer to prove that, and in this case, the court found the employer's argument that her actions amounted to insubordination to be inadequate."

In the case that established the precedent in 1987, an ambulance driver was fired after having four minor accidents in three months backing up a vehicle. The hearing officer and state agency denied his unemployment claim, but the state supreme court said the law requires "evil design" or wanton disregard of its interests, and that test was not satisfied.

"If the ambulance driver with four accidents in three months qualified for a benefit, then by implication, Ms. Smiley did, too," professor LeRoy said.

After nine months of unemployment, Smiley obtained a similar job at another company on Dec. 13. She said her new employer has a more liberal lunch policy.

"They told me I could sit at my desk, I could be at my computer during lunch, or I could look at magazines. And in my area, they have two flat-screen TVs on the wall," she said with a chuckle.

Hotel Workers Stiffed Millions In Wages, Lawsuit Alleges

2012-01-11T13:22:00.000-08:00

More than a dozen low-level hotel workers in Indianapolis have filed a class-action lawsuit against ten of the city’s hotels and a labor staffing agency, claiming they were routinely cheated out of pay with the knowledge of hotel management.

The workers — most of them Hispanic immigrants employed as housekeepers, dishwashers and bussers — say they were forced to work off the clock and through their unpaid breaks, sometimes pushing their earnings below the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. The suit could potentially involve more than a thousand workers and millions of dollars in claims, according to the hotel workers union UNITE HERE, which is organizing workers in Indianapolis.

The employees named in the suit worked for a labor agency called Hospitality Staffing Solutions (HSS), which provides lower-rung workers to hotel companies like Hyatt on a temporary basis in cities across the country. On its website, HSS declares itself a client’s “secret weapon for improving service while cutting costs — 12% annually, on average.”

A HuffPost report in August chronicled how the outsourcing of work to HSS has led to a two-class system within certain hotels, as lesser-paid agency workers toil alongside better-compensated direct hires. Several Indianapolis hotel workers told HuffPost then that the agency shorted them on their wages and threatened them with dismissal if they couldn’t finish their work in the allotted time. The CEO of HSS said at the time that any instances of unpaid wages were honest mistakes and that the company took the allegations seriously.

Management at Georgia-based HSS could not immediately be reached for comment. This isn’t the first time the company has been sued by workers. A former manager in Pittsburgh once filed a lawsuit claiming he was fired because he stood up for housekeepers who weren’t being paid what they were owed. The company has also been criticized for an advertisement it ran in a hotel trade publication that showed tiny workers inside a vending machine, apparently ready for purchase.

The HSS-staffed hotels named in the Indianapolis lawsuit include Embassy Suites, Marriott, Westin, Hyatt, Holiday Inn and Omni properties.

Martha Gonzalez, 28, one of the workers now suing, tells HuffPost she worked at Hyatt and Marriott properties as an HSS employee earning the minimum wage. She says that she was required to come in early and prepare her housekeeping cart before punching in, and that she often wound up working through her lunch break or clocking out to finish work at the end of the day, to avoid being punished. She says she quit last summer.

“I was sick of getting a check that didn’t meet my family’s needs,” Gonzalez, who’s from Mexico, says through a translator. “Every check was just too small. I was so tired of working in a place under pressure, getting calls from the manager, ‘Are you finished? Are you finished?’”

Plaintiff Anastasia Amantecatl, who worked for HSS as a housekeeper at a Marriott, claims that she was compelled to show up two hours before her shift actually started each day. “This was necessary for her to complete her required number of rooms for the day,” the lawsuit states. “She was not compensated for this time nor was she paid the required overtime premium for this time.” The lawsuit alleges that between 20 and 25 housekeepers found themselves in a similar situation at the hotel.

Many hotel workers in Indianapolis have told HuffPost that their workloads have increased in recent years as their wages have remained flat or even gone down. Workers and their advocates partly blame the outsourcing of previously in-house jobs for deteriorating work conditions.

A hotel company can save money by shifting some of its workforce to a company like HSS, since it would no longer be responsible for providing costly worker benefits. But workers employed by labor agencies are technically temps, sometimes going years on end without receiving health coverage or pay raises. Similar temp outsourcing has become widespread in the warehousing and logistics industries, where many workers blame the temp model for their low wages and lack of benefits.

Officials with UNITE HERE argue that the outsourcing at hotels has hidden costs for the city and state, such as the taxpayer-funded health care that many agency workers’ families end up using. “I don’t think the taxpayers of Indianapolis should be the ones to subsidize these workers because these corporations don’t want to [provide] living wages and benefits,” Becky Smith, a union organizer, told HuffPost last summer.

Salvador Perez, a 38-year-old father of two from Mexico, is also named in the hotel lawsuit. He says that he worked for HSS for the last few months of 2011, earning the $7.25 minimum wage as a dishwasher. He claims he would regularly work a 40-hour week but end up being paid only for 35. He says he’s suing with his colleagues to recover back wages and “end the exploitation that’s happening at hotels downtown.”

“We struggled to pay for diapers for our baby,” Perez says. “We had to go to food pantries and churches to feed our families. They always said, ‘It’ll come with the next check, it’ll come with the next check.’ But it didn’t.”

About the Author: David Jamieson is the Huffington Post’s workplace reporter.Before joining the D.C. bureau, Jamieson reported on transportation issues for local Washington news site TBD.com and covered criminal justice for Washington City Paper. He’s the author of a non-fiction book, Mint Condition: How Baseball Cards Became an American Obsession, and his stories have appeared in Slate, The New Republic, The Washington Post, and Outside. A Capitol Hill resident, he’s won the Livingston Award for Young Journalists and the Hillman Foundation’s Sidney Award.

Housekeepers Charge Hyatt Fired Them for Taking Down Their Own Photos

2011-12-15T18:07:00.000-08:00

By Josh Eidelson
Becoming a pin-up without your permission: another downside of workplace autocracy

Passing through the halls one day in September, Martha Reyes stopped to see why a group of her Hyatt co-workers stood laughing in front of a bulletin board. Looking closer, she saw photos of her head, and those of other housekeeping employees, pasted onto bodies in swimsuits. “I got really angry,” says Reyes, seeing her face on a figure that looked “almost naked, and a very different body that wasn’t mine. I felt very humiliated and embarrassed.” Martha’s sister Lorena was also included in the beach-themed display, which Hyatt management had posted over the weekend as part of Housekeeping Appreciation Week.

Martha Reyes took down her picture and her sister’s. A month later, alleging they spent too long on their lunch break, the Hyatt Regency Santa Clara fired both of them.

The sisters charge that the non-union hotel was retaliating against them over the bulletin board. Hotel workers’ union UNITE HERE (full disclosure: my former employer) is championing their cause. On November 18, the union organized a delegation of hotel workers and community leaders that joined the Reyes sisters in delivering a copy of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint to the hotel, followed by picketing outside. UNITE HERE is in a national fight with Hyatt over organizing rights at non-union hotels.

As In These Times has reported, UNITE HERE has drawn national attention to 100 non-union Hyatt workers in Boston who were abruptly replaced by a staffing company, and partnered with LGBT groups in boycotting a Hyatt hotel whose owner’s donation helped put repeal of equal marriage rights on the ballot. In September, union Hyatt workers in four cities staged a one-week strike demanding the right to do future solidarity actions while under contract. In February, the Reyes sisters and other union committee members called for a customer boycott of the Hyatt Regency Santa Clara over management’s refusal to agree to a fair organizing process.

Hyatt maintains that the Reyes’ firings were routine, and that the union is taking an opportunistic swipe at their brand. The sisters’ attorney, Adam Zapala, says that conversations with Hyatt Regency Santa Clara employees have turned up no one else who has been terminated for long lunches. He notes that many housekeepers there, faced with excessive workloads, work through their breaks and then take a longer lunch.

Hyatt insists that the posted photos were designed to celebrate housekeepers, not to make fun of them. (The company did not respond to a request for comment.) That could well be true – managers may have put up the display without ever imagining that some employees would be humiliated, rather than tickled, to see their faces juxtaposed on shapely people in bikinis.

That possibility in itself illustrates the downsides of autocracy. The Reyes sisters say the plans for Housekeeping Appreciation Week, like most decisions at the Hyatt Regency, were made with no input – let alone consent – from hourly employees. “I’m a big woman,” says Lorena Reyes, “and the photo they used isn’t my body…I never wear bikinis…those pictures made us look like clowns.” (Both sisters were interviewed in Spanish.)

Though the posting was in an employee area, its location was visible to passing employees from all departments, outside vendors, and the occasional guest. It’s difficult to know how many other employees at the non-union hotel had similar feelings but chose to stay silent rather than take the risks at-will employees face by getting on the wrong side of management. If the pin-ups themselves seem commonplace, that’s striking as well: one of 100 daily collisions between values of autonomy and the acceptance of subordination as a cost of employment.

The indignity the Reyes sisters faced – seeing your image used in a way that horrifies you, by someone who could fire you – is a stark reminder that workplace relationships are power relationships. Lest we think that was obvious, this month noted non-feminist Katie Roiphe took to the New York Times to call for more “risqué remarks” at work, with nary a mention of whether those comments were more likely to come from subordinates towards “superiors,” or the other way around. When’s the last time you saw employees pin up a photo of their boss’ head on a swimsuit model at work?

And as the Reyes’ sisters have experienced, the downsides of management autocracy don’t disappear at the end of your shift. Both sisters carried their shame and anger home with them at night. “I still feel really humiliated,” says Martha Reyes. Lorena Reyes avoided showing the image to her family out of embarrassment. They saw it for the first time when it appeared in local news.

The Hyatt Regency Santa Clara also offers a reminder that labor rights and women’s rights aren’t naturally severable. Their connection is especially obvious in housekeeping, where a usually invisible, sometimes sexualized workforce does dangerous but undervalued work. UNITE HERE members in several cities have negotiated for and won the option for employees to wear pants rather than skirts. After a UNITE HERE housekeeper charged former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn with rape, union members around the country spoke out about sexual harassment and assault by hotel guests.

“We want to make sure Hyatt does the right thing,” says Lorena Reyes, “and that they don’t humiliate women again like they did to us.”

Suit: NBA Fired Me for Relaying Women's Complaints

2011-12-15T16:52:00.000-08:00

JENNIFER PELTZ,Associated Press
Warren Glover, NBA, Sexual Harassment, Lawsuit, Women, Basketball, Misogny

NEW YORK (AP) -- The NBA forced a security director out of his job because he stuck up for colleagues who complained of sexual harassment and discrimination, the ousted league official said in a lawsuit Thursday.

After a decade with the league, Warren Glover was fired in July "in retaliation for his continued advocacy on behalf of female employees," according to his lawsuit against the NBA and three current and former security executives.

The league hasn't seen the lawsuit, but based on media reports about it, "Mr. Glover's allegations are without merit, and we will vigorously defend against them," spokesman Mike Bass said. The lawsuit, filed in a Manhattan state court, seeks unspecified damages.

A former New York Police Department lieutenant commander, Glover started working for the league in 2001, his lawsuit said. His job eventually included running security for the NBA Jam Session, a fan-friendly event tied to the All-Star Game.

Glover earned praise during his first few years with the league, but he was passed over for a promotion and started getting bad evaluations after he reported three women's allegations to bosses, according to his complaint.

Two women said another security employee had made offensive remarks, displayed pornographic material on his computer screen and otherwise harassed them, Glover says.

To him, "this was a serious matter," he said in an interview Thursday. But when he relayed the complaints to higher-ups, they expressed concerns about harming the other employee's career, his lawsuit says.

The third woman, Annette Smith, ultimately filed a federal gender-discrimination lawsuit saying Bernard Tolbert, then a league senior vice president for security, made demeaning comments about women and forced her to photocopy a sexually inappropriate picture. Smith, an administrative worker, said she was denied promotions and ultimately fired after she complained.

Tolbert and the league denied her allegations. Her lawsuit was settled in September 2009, court records show.

Glover testified in a deposition that Tolbert and other league officials were aware of Smith's complaints, his lawsuit says.

Glover's lawsuit also names Tolbert and current league security officials Gregory Robinson and James Cawley as defendants.

Tolbert, who now lives in Buffalo, said he was unaware of the lawsuit and didn't realize that Glover was no longer with the NBA, as Glover was still working there when he retired.

"I have no idea what he's talking about," Tolbert said by phone.

Glover, 50, said he repeatedly contested his bad evaluations, to no avail. He said the league cited poor performance in dismissing him in July, but he believes his firing was payback for raising gender-discrimination issues.

"There was a culture of misogyny at this department," said one of his lawyers, Randolph M. McLaughlin.

Sexual harassment on the administrative end of pro basketball became a flashpoint in 2007, when a jury awarded former New York Knicks executive Anucha Browne Sanders $11.6 million in her lawsuit against then-coach Isiah Thomas and Madison Square Garden. Thomas, a former Detroit Pistons star, was removed as Knicks coach after a dismal season that year. He now coaches at Florida International University.
___
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.

Former HHS Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Named In Discrimination Suit

2011-11-28T17:51:00.000-08:00

Debbie Ridgely, the former Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) has been named in a discrimination suit. The lawsuit, Holmes-Martin, v. Sebelius, Civil Action No. 07-2128, is set for trial December 5, 2011.

Ridgely, the named responsible management official in the pending lawsuit, retired October 1, 2011. The former HHS OSDBU director announced her retirement plan in the Department's newsletter -- "HHS Pulse."
http://www.hhs.gov/about/smallbusiness/pulsehome/pulse_v7_i26.pdf

Civil rights groups are disturbed to hear of the discrimination claim brought against Ridgely. While employed with HHS, Ridgely was responsible for ensuring that small businesses were treated fairly and had an opportunity to compete and be selected for a fair amount of the agency's contracting and subcontracting dollars.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04451.pdf

The plaintiff in the case is Ms. Arthuretta Holmes-Martin, an African American female who had served as the HHS OSDBU Deputy Director before she was terminated from the Department. Ms. Holmes-Martin asserts that HHS discriminated against her on the basis of her race and retaliated against her for her involvement in protected EEO activity by transferring her deputy director duties to Clarence Randall (Caucasian male), awarding Randall the title of "Special Advisor," reassigning many of her projects, and terminating her employment. According to court records, one witness stated that the former HHS OSDBU Director (Ridgely) "caused minority employees to retire or [leave] early because she would not allow them to succeed in their jobs."

In a Memorandum Opinion dated March 17, 2010, U.S. District Judge Richard Urbina found that the plaintiff offered some evidence that Ridgely held discriminatory views. Judge Urbina further stated that "a reasonable jury could infer that Ridgely transferred the plaintiff's Deputy Director duties to Randall [Caucasian] out of a discriminatory motive." (p. 17) http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2007cv02128/128537/36

Mr. Philip Taylor, President of the Coalition for Change, Inc. (C4C) http://coalition4change.org/aboutus.htm wrote to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about the Department's handling of Ms. Holmes-Martin's case. In the letter to the Obama-appointed Secretary dated November 15, 2011, Mr. Taylor states, "Our members were hopeful that the new administration's cabinet secretaries would be more pro-active in resolving these complaints and law suits that had been unnecessarily prolonged for years by agency and U.S. Justice Department attorneys. We are troubled that the Holmes-Martin case has been ongoing for more than five years." Taylor says the C4C considers discrimination and reprisal for protected activities to be forms of workplace bullying.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/72516856/C4C-Letter-to-HHS-Secretary-Re-Holmes-Martin-vs-Sebelius

Ms. Terri L. Williams, Presiding Chair for the Alliance of Federal Workplace Accountability (The Alliance), also wrote to Secretary Sebelius. In the letter dated November 16, 2011, Ms. Williams wrote: "The business community, particularly those in the small, disadvantaged and women-owned businesses, is disappointed to hear of HHS's inability to promptly resolve discrimination claims. It reportedly took over two (2) years for HHS to investigate the former OSDBU Deputy Director's claims of racism, retaliation, and a hostile work environment which is a clear violation of the regulations." http://www.scribd.com/doc/73091321/The-Alliance-for-Federal-Workplace-Accountability-Letter-to-Secretary-Sebelius

The Alliance, which includes such groups as Black Leadership Round Table, Blacks In Government (Region XI), Civil Rights Defense Fund, National Whistleblowers Center, Network for Women's Equality, NO FEAR Coalition, The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C), and The USDA Coalition of Minority Employees, pledged that they will stand with Ms. Holmes-Martin when she takes her case to the U. S. District Court of the District of Columbia on December 5.
Ms. Holmes-Martin is represented by Attorney David H. Shapiro, and Richard L. Swick, of Swick & Shapiro, P.C., and Washington, DC. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=2008753569qfsupp2d184_1737.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

New Mexico Black Groups Claim Bias at University

2011-11-25T14:53:00.000-08:00

DENVER — A group of African-American pastors in New Mexico, along with the Albuquerque chapter of the NAACP, said Tuesday that they have filed a complaint with the Justice Department alleging that black faculty and staff members at the University of New Mexico and its hospital are subject to discrimination.

The Title VI complaint, which was also filed with the federal Department of Education, says university administrators have created a racially hostile environment for black faculty members, students and the staff.

Specifically, it asserts that African-Americans have been excluded from positions in the school’s upper administration; that black women at New Mexico were virtually left out of all positions of authority; and that blacks on the faculty faced disparity in salaries compared with fellow minority colleagues.

The complaint also claims that 80 percent of the black doctors who had left the university’s medical school and hospital over the past decade did so because of workplace discrimination or “adverse employment action.”

Bishop David Cooper, who heads the group of black clergy members, said he has fielded dozens of complaints from people on the faculty and staff at New Mexico over the past few years about mistreatment. The bishop raised the concerns with the university on behalf of educators and other staff members who feared retaliation, he said. The administration, Bishop Cooper said, had not done enough to address the problem.

“We basically got to a place where we felt the administration was not willing to even consider making changes, even though they themselves conceded there were disparities,” said Bishop Cooper, senior pastor at New Hope Full Gospel Baptist Church in Albuquerque.

“We hope this brings change in policy and practice as it relates to retention, promotion, recruitment and the treatment of African-Americans on campus,” he said.

The university’s president, David J. Schmidly, and the Health Sciences Center’s chancellor, Paul Roth, denied the claims of discrimination in a joint statement issued Tuesday.

“We do not discriminate against African-Americans. We do not discriminate against any individual or group based on race, religion, sexual orientation, age, gender or ability,” the statement said. “The university has very clear policies in place which prohibit discrimination and we train our employees to comply with the law and our policies.”

Billy Sparks, spokesman for the Health Sciences Center, said the allegation about black doctors leaving had been raised more than a year ago, investigated and found to be false.

“We look forward to continuing to sit down with the ministers to address their concerns,” he said.
New Mexico, which has about 36,000 students, has a large number of Hispanic students and teachers. As of last school year, only 2.4 percent of its student body was black, and fewer than 20 of its black faculty members were tenured or on a tenure track.

An April report compiled at the request of Mr. Schmidly concluded that the black community at New Mexico had become isolated and the school was in need of “transformational change.”

“The fact of the matter is that no one seems to be recognizing the issues that African-Americans face here,” said Scott Carreathers, director of African-American student services at New Mexico, noting that a pervasive feeling of inequality existed among black staff and faculty members at the school. “And that becomes very disheartening.”

Student Files Discrimination Complaint Against Applebee’s

2011-11-12T07:03:00.000-08:00

November 2011

By Lauren Slavin, Editor-in-Chief

Towson University junior Courtney Haywood said she went to work Oct. 31 expecting a mediation meeting with management regarding a discrimination claim.

Instead, she was handed a termination letter.

After making several complaints to no avail that a manager at the Towson Applebee’s Neighborhood Bar and Grille was harassing her and that she was only assigned to tables of black customers, Haywood has filed a complaint of racial discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“It felt unfair and it shouldn’t happen to you,” Haywood said.

Haywood, former Applebee’s employee Raenelle Cole, and Director of the National United Youth Council Salaam Ismial held a press conference outside the LaSalle Road Applebee’s in Towson Tuesday, Nov. 8, to make the public aware of the way this particular Applebee’s treats its employees, according to Ismial.

“This is courageous for Courtney to step up,” Ismial, who is also Haywood’s uncle, said. “You do have rights, and it’s best to file a complaint than not complain at all.”

At the press conference, Bob Hughes, Applebee’s Area Director for district six, would not comment on the situation regarding Haywood’s termination.

Hughes is an employee of The Rose Group, a restaurant managing company that owns and operates 59 Applebee’s on the Eastern Shore.

Communications firm Diccicco Battista Communications released a formal statement regarding the organization’s response shortly after the press conference.

“We take these allegations very seriously. We’re fully committed to creating a fair work environment for all of our team members,” the statement read. “We have not received a copy of the alleged complaint, so we do not have any further information to offer at this time.”

Under new management
Haywood, a 23-year-old single mother, started working at Applebee’s in 2007 as a way to fund her education at Towson University. In May 2011, the Applebee’s acquired new management, and the restaurant was “shot to hell,” according to Haywood.

“All of us as workers were unhappy with the direction of the staff and how things have gone awry, if you would say that,” Haywood said. “I’ve never been one to be quiet about anything. A lot of my co-workers there look to me as if I were a mom figure, because I do have a child.”

Under old management, Haywood said she often assumed the responsibilities of host, server, bartender, cook and manager, though she was employed as a server.

Under new management, she said her workload wasn’t an issue, but something a co-worker and several of her customers brought up to her became the launching point for several complaints.

Black customers predominantly occupied the tables she was assigned to serve, according to Haywood.

Haywood said she noticed other servers requesting that hostesses seat customers of specific races and genders in their sections, many specifically not asking for black patrons.

”There’s a stereotype through the server community that black people don’t tip,” Haywood said. “They prefer to have white tables … You’re making the assumption every black person that comes in here is ghetto and doesn’t tip.”

Making concerns known
Haywood began approaching her co-workers when she saw them request gender or race-specific customers, and if her guests asked her why they were surrounded by only black patrons, she said she would be honest with them. Applebee’s prides itself on employee/customer relations, according to Haywood, saying servers are “relationship makers, not order takers.”

Reprimands and written warnings were issued to Haywood for improperly handling her complaints.
“I’m not one for lying to my guests. I have large clientele,” Haywood said. “I speak with them not just on business terms, but actual conversations. They’re like friends to me. If they see I’m not happy, they ask me why I’m not happy. And I’m not going to lie to them, I tell them the truth.”

Applebee’s offers employees a hotline to report when the restaurant’s code of conduct, which includes anti-discrimination as a policy, is not followed.

Haywood said she made several complaints regarding violations of this code of conduct. On Sept. 27 and Oct. 27, Haywood said she asked for mediation with the management staff. Her first call was returned to ask for more details about the complaint, but no further action was taken, according to Haywood.

She said she also spoke with the various managers of Applebee’s about her concerns.
“I talked to a manager, who kept saying, ‘I will take care of it, don’t worry about it.’ And nothing was taken care of,” Haywood said.

The final days
Separate from her complaints about unbalanced guest placement according to race and gender, Haywood took issue with the way one manager in particular began treating her.

Instead of being trusted with the responsibilities former managers assigned to her, Haywood said her new general manager would follow her throughout the workday, asking her to complete tasks she couldn’t manage in a short period of time while still serving tables in her section. The manager never referred to her by her name, but instead called her “Lady.”

Haywood’s growing file of warnings proved detrimental to her process of complaining on Oct. 28, after a second call to the Applebee’s hotline was made and Hughes spoke to her about the various complaints.

“He said, ‘You don’t have such an impeccable record with us,’” Haywood said. “He had already made up his mind.”

Haywood said she believes her termination was passed down from Hughes. The grounds she was provided with for her termination were “conducting herself in image that is detrimental to the company, failing to maintain harmonious working relationships and being uncivil toward others.”

“How can you say I’m being insubordinate when I took strides to do what I’m supposed to do, but didn’t do it on your time,” Haywood said.

Informing the public
Haywood and Ismial both said the purpose of Tuesday’s press conference was not to boycott Applebee’s.

As customers left the restaurant, Haywood, who often recognized their faces, handed out colorful fliers about the case she filed with the EEOC.

“Thank you for speaking up,” one woman said as she returned to her car. “That’s the last time I order from Applebee’s.”

“Hopefully something positive comes of this,” another customer said.

Article - http://www.thetowerlight.com/2011/11/student-files-discrimination-complaint-against-applebee%E2%80%99s/

MSPB Vice-Chairman Anne Wagner Named in Discrimination Suit

2011-10-24T22:13:00.000-07:00

Posted on October 23, 2011 by mspbwatch

Anne Wagner, who was appointed MSPB Vice-Chairman by President Obama in 2009, has been named in a workplace discrimination lawsuit now pending in federal district court in Washington, D.C.

The suit, Williams v. Dodaro, (Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-1452), brought by a senior trial attorney in the Government Accountability Office, alleges “age, race, and sex discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile and abusive work environment.” The defendant is Gene Dodaro, the U.S. Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Wagner was, for a time, Williams’ direct supervisor as General Counsel of the Personnel Appeals Board at the GAO.

In August, the court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part a motion for summary judgment, thus paving the way for settlement or trial. In a 2008 memorandum opinion by the court, Wagner is alleged to have “‘physically confront[ed] and loudly threaten[ed]‘ Williams ‘in her office on June 30, 2006,’ . . . ‘regularly disparaged’ Williams’s job performance during discussions with her co-workers and ‘routinely questioned’ those co-workers concerning Williams’s whereabouts during work days.’”

S. 743, Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2011Passed Out of Committee

2011-10-20T13:16:00.000-07:00

Dear MISC Members, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed S. 743, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2011, by a unanimous voice vote at this morning’s markup. An archived video can be viewed here, beginning at minute 43, http://1.usa.gov/nu6i5R.

Before the full senate vote, we will work to address recent developments, specifically attempts to gag national security whistleblowers through a new pseudo-secrecy category known as Controlled Unclassified Information.

The emerging legislative consensus includes the following reforms so far:

Closes judicially-created loopholes in the law’s protection, while tightening language to preclude circumvention of the congressional free speech mandate.
Provides those covered by the WPA with access to jury trials in federal district court to challenge major disciplinary actions.
Restores normal appeals court access for whistleblowers who lose at the Merit Systems Protection Board, freeing them from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (The court has a 3-216 track record against whistleblowers since Congress last reaffirmed the law in 1994).
Extends WPA rights to some 40,000 airport baggage screeners.
Provides whistleblower rights to those who refuse to violate the law.
Creates specific protection in the law for scientific freedom, making it an abuse of authority to censor, obstruct dissemination, or misrepresent the results of federal research.
Restores the unqualified, original “reasonable belief” standard established in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act for whistleblowers to qualify for protection.
Codifies and gives a remedy for the anti-gag statute, which bars agency rules or after-the-fact classification of information from overriding whistleblower rights.
Outlaws security clearance harassment as a WPA violation, establishes minimum due process standards for agency clearance actions, and breaks out of the grievance model through appellate review of clearance actions by an inter-agency intelligence community board required to have both merit system and national security expertise.
Explicitly states that FBI employees retain their exclusive remedy for prohibited personnel practices and are not placed into the new section on prohibited personnel practices for the intelligence community.
Extends rights analogous to the WPA for disclosures within the chain of command to employees of intelligence community agencies (i.e., CIA, NSA), and requires the Administration to issue corresponding enforcement regulations customized for the IC context but equivalent to the WPA.
Bars the President from exercising discretionary power to impose national security exemptions that deprive employees of Title 5 WPEA rights after the employee files a reprisal complaint.
Provides specific authority for whistleblowers to disclose classified information to Members of Congress on relevant oversight committees or to their staff.
Provides compensatory damages up to $300,000, and reimbursement for expert witness fees to prevailing whistleblowers, establishing consistency with other remedial employment laws.
Modifies the burdens of proof to make it more realistic for the Office of Special Counsel to seek disciplinary accountability against those who retaliate.
Provides the Special Counsel with authority to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of whistleblower rights cases appealed from the administrative level.
Creates a whistleblower ombudsman as a five-year experiment to advise employees of their rights in Offices of Inspectors General (OIG) for title 5 employees.

From Government Accountability Project (GAP) (www.whistleblower.org), Washington, DC

Posted by Angels Press (www.AngelsPress.com) and Cathy Harris (www.CathyHarrisSpeaks.com).

Justice Department Sues New York City (99% Democrats) for Decades Long Discrimination Against African Americans!

2011-10-10T14:35:00.000-07:00

Justice Department Sues New York City (99% Democrats) for Decades Long Discrimination Against African Americans!

Justice Department Sues New York City for Discriminating Against Black and Hispanic Firefighter Applicants

WEBWIRE – Tuesday, May 22, 2007

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit alleging that the City of New York uses written examinations that discriminate against blacks and Hispanics in the hiring of entry-level firefighters in the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY). According to the United States’ complaint, of the FDNY’s 11,000 uniformed firefighters in all ranks, only about 3% are black and 4.5% are Hispanic. These figures contrast sharply with the percentages of blacks and Hispanics in the city’s police department. According to a 1999 city report, 13.4% and 17.2% of the uniformed officers in the New York City Police Department were black and Hispanic, respectively. Those percentages have since increased.

According to the government’s suit, filed in the Eastern District of New York, the FDNY’s use of two written examinations in the selection of firefighter applicants violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States alleges that the use of these examinations violates Title VII because they result in a disparate impact against black and Hispanic applicants and do not accurately determine whether an applicant will be able to perform the job of firefighter. Title VII prohibits employment practices and selection devices, such as the city’s use of the written examinations, that result in disparate impact on the basis of race or national origin, unless employers can prove that such practices and devices are “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”

The United States’ lawsuit stems in part from allegations of race discrimination made in charges that were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by the Vulcan Society Inc.—an organization that represents black FDNY firefighters—and three individual claimants. Following an EEOC determination that the city’s use of the examinations violated Title VII, the Justice Department conducted its own investigation and determined that the city’s use of the examinations also constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination against both black and Hispanic applicants.

“Examinations should validly measure an applicant’s ability to do the job. The city’s testing practices, however, do not select the firefighter applicants who will best perform their important public safety mission, while disproportionately screening out large numbers of qualified black and Hispanic applicants,” said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Department of Justice will vigorously enforce the requirements of Title VII.”

“Municipal employers may not use written tests that are not job related and that make it more difficult for black and Hispanic applicants to become firefighters,” said U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf. “This lawsuit seeks to provide remedies to those who are victims of past discrimination, and to ensure that qualified black and Hispanic applicants are hired in the future by the FDNY.”

The two written examinations identified in the United States’ complaint were administered in February 1999 and December 2002. The first examination was used to appoint new firefighters from February 2001 until December 2004. The second examination has been used to appoint new firefighters since May 2004. Although the city administered a new written firefighter examination in January 2007, it continues to appoint new firefighters from the eligibility list of the second examination. The city has advised the Department of Justice that the city intends to continue to use that eligibility list until May 2008.

The United States’ suit seeks a court order that the city end discrimination against black and Hispanic firefighter applicants, as well as remedial relief for those black and Hispanic firefighter applicants who have been harmed by the city’s use of the two challenged examinations. This is the Department’s first pattern or practice Title VII lawsuit against a major municipal fire department since 1991.

This case is being handled by attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.

Judge Cites Discrimination in N.Y. Fire Dept. By AL BAKER
Published: January 13, 2010

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that New York City intentionally discriminated against black applicants to the Fire Department by continuing to use an exam that it had been told put them at a disadvantage.

Christian Hansen for The New York Times
John Coombs, the president of the Vulcan Society, which won a racial bias suit against New York City on Wednesday.

It was not a “one-time mistake or the product of benign neglect,” wrote the judge, Nicholas G. Garaufis of Federal District Court in Brooklyn. “It was a part of a pattern, practice and policy of intentional discrimination against black applicants that has deep historical antecedents and uniquely disabling effects.” A remedy will be decided on later.

In his decision, the judge highlighted how “black and other minority firefighters have been severely underrepresented,” characterizing that as a “persistent stain on the Fire Department’s record.”

City officials said that they intended to appeal the decision, but could not do so until the judge had determined what damages the city might face.

Legal experts, as well as lawyers for the plaintiffs and city officials, said the decision was the first in recent memory in which a court had found that the city had intentionally discriminated against a large group of people — racial minorities or women, for instance — in the workplace.

“I can’t recall there ever being a finding of intentional racial discrimination in a pattern-and-practice case against the city,” said Elise C. Boddie, a professor of constitutional law at New York Law School who formerly litigated employment discrimination cases. “I would say this is pretty big.”

In July, Judge Garaufis — acting on a claim being pushed by the United States Justice Department — ruled that the Fire Department used a test in 1999 and 2002 that had a discriminatory effect on black applicants.

In his ruling on Wednesday, the judge found that the city intentionally discriminated against blacks in using those tests and in ignoring calls over the years to change the testing procedure. The suit was brought by three people who took the test and by the Vulcan Society, a fraternal organization of black city firefighters.

At the heart of the case is the Fire Department’s persistent underrepresentation of minorities and the continued use, between 1999 and 2007, of the entrance exams. In 2007, there were 303 black firefighters, accounting for 3.4 percent of the department’s ranks; black residents make up 25.6 percent of the city’s population.

The judge noted that while the city’s other uniformed services “have made rapid progress integrating black members into their ranks, the Fire Department has stagnated and at times retrogressed.”

Judge Garaufis stopped short of finding that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the former fire commissioner, Nicholas Scoppetta, had also intentionally discriminated against black applicants. But the judge wrote that he found strong evidence to suggest that they were made aware numerous times that the Fire Department’s entrance exams were discriminatory, yet failed to take sufficient remedial action.

The mayor testified at a deposition in August that he did not recall receiving a report more than six years ago warning him about sharp differences in the pass rates between white and minority candidates for firefighter jobs, lawyers said.

The judge “let the mayor and the commissioner off the hook on the basis of a doctrine known as qualified immunity,” said Richard A. Levy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. He said that doctrine exempts public officials from lawsuits that are based on their discretionary decisions.

The chief of the labor and employment law division of the city’s Law Department said in a written statement that she was “pleased” that the court dismissed claims against Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Scoppetta, but disagreed with the overall finding of intentional discrimination.

“It is the city’s view that there is simply no evidence that the city ever intended to discriminate against black applicants,” the lawyer, Georgia Pestana, said.

Anjana Samant, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which was part of the team that represented the plaintiffs, said that the class of people involved has been defined as those who were disqualified from becoming firefighters by virtue of the tests. The pool of potential claimants, she said, could reach the hundreds.

Ms. Samant said the remedies could include payment of lost salary for those denied jobs, as well as new city hiring policies.

Some city officials said they found the decision unexpected and deeply perplexing, in part because the judge ruled on plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and the city’s motion to dismiss the case without a trial.

Mr. Levy agreed it was unusual to get a ruling based solely on documentary evidence and depositions, but he said “the evidence of a decades-long pattern of discriminating against black and Latino firefighter applicants was overwhelming.”

Ms. Boddie, the New York Law School professor, said such rulings against government entities were rare around the nation, adding, “To the extent there is a finding of liability, it is usually on disparate-impact grounds, not based on racially discriminatory intent.”

Paul Washington, 48, a firefighter in Brooklyn and a former Vulcan Society president, said that the ruling validated “what we’ve been saying for the longest time, and which I’ve been saying since 1999 — that the Fire Department discriminates, intentionally, and they just continue to do it.”

He said he believed that over the department’s 145-year history, there were probably “thousands of thousands of black men and women who should have had this job and didn’t get it.”

Toby Lyles and Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting.

Outsourced and Fired, IT Workers Fight Back

2011-10-06T06:11:00.000-07:00

Computerworld - On the day they were fired early last year, about 40 IT employees at Molina Healthcare Inc. had been gathered in a conference room for what they were told would be a planning meeting. At the same time, laptop computers were being collected from the assembled workers' desks.

During the meeting, Molina's then-CIO, Amir Desai, informed the workers that they were being laid off for financial reasons, "not because of [their] performance."

The layoffs came amid rising tensions over a number of issues, including the expanding role of an offshore IT contractor at Molina.

The workers raised the concerns with Desai during the meeting.

More in Government "I felt they were expecting us to be asking questions about Cobra and unemployment and all that," said Bonita Shok, one of the laid-off IT employees. "Instead, we were being quite confrontational about why they are laying us off and keeping all these H-1B workers."

"I have never experienced a group of employees who were so angry," said a human resources manager who was in the meeting to answer questions from employees about benefits. The HR manager asked not to be identified.

"They felt their work was being offshored -- they were angry at the H-1B employees that were being hired," said the longtime HR industry veteran who had been hired to execute the IT layoffs at Molina, a managed healthcare provider that serves Medicaid and Medicare recipients. "I [had] never felt the backlash that I felt from Molina employees."

The employees, who lost their jobs in January 2010, never got answers to their questions about the company's IT outsourcing strategy.

Instead, 18 of them filed a lawsuit in California state court earlier this year against Molina, its CIO at the time and its outsourcing contractor, Cognizant Technology Solutions.

The HR employee, who was later laid off as well, is a witness for the plaintiffs in the case.

The plaintiffs contend, among other things, that they are victims of discrimination due to national origin. The lawsuit charges that the employees were fired because the companies sought to employ people "whose national origin, race and/or ethnicity was exclusively Indian," and didn't want to employ Americans or green-card holders.

Molina contends that the lawsuit is grounded in "falsehoods and malicious gossip." Cognizant has said that the lawsuit is without merit and that it "will vigorously contest it."

Desai, through his attorney, says the lawsuit is itself guilty of "an unfair discriminatory bias." Desai himself has since left Molina.

Of the workers who are part of this suit, 10 brought an earlier claim against Molina that was settled in mediation before this case was filed. The mediation agreements did not settle the case for all the workers and did not include current lawsuit defendants Cognizant and Desai.

While what happened at Molina is still in dispute, job displacement because of offshore outsourcing is a fact of life in today's IT workplace. While there are no government numbers that detail its extent, the broad outlines of the story told by the Molina workers should be familiar to other IT workers.

Outsourcing engagements often start when offshore IT services companies bring in workers, typically on H-1B or L-1 visas, to learn a company's IT processes. Then the work is moved overseas. Molina employees contend that's what happened to them.
James Otto, the attorney representing the Molina employees in the lawsuit, claims that about 200 visa-holding workers have been brought into the company.

Otto has told the former Molina IT workers that such activity is a form of segregation. "Today you're being segregated based on your national origin," he said.

Several years before the layoff, there were about 70 or 80 IT employees at Molina, according to a group of more than a dozen former Molina IT workers who met with Computerworld late last month. Many of the former Molina workers asked that their names not be published.

At that time, Cognizant had a small presence at the firm, mostly to supplement internal work. The employees said they felt no threat at the time. In fact, said Shok, "there was a feeling of camaraderie on the team."

Most of the immediate IT managers were either laid off or quit, according to the employees. At the same time, the number of contractors increased. The lawsuit alleges that Desai and his management team "hire[d] and promote[d] only Indian nationals to management positions."

Desai, through his attorney, says the allegation is false. Of the six IT managers reporting to him, two were of Indian descent, he said.

"My client is dismayed both at the false allegations in Mr. Otto's lawsuit and its ethnically inflammatory undertone suggesting that Mr. Desai is biased against Americans and favors Indians solely because he is 'of Indian descent,' " wrote Desai's attorney, Edward Raskin in an email to Computerworld.

Raskin also points out that Desai was born in the U.S. and graduated from a U.S. university. He says the lawsuit avoids certain facts. "For example, some of the employees who lost their jobs at Molina were 'of Indian descent,' which contradicts Mr. Otto's suggestion that Mr. Desai and the company only favored Indians," he said.

But from the perspective of the employees, the workplace was changing.

The IT staff had been diverse, and represented seemingly every nationality, much like the population of Long Beach, Calif., where Molina is based.

The employees said they liked working at Molina, and felt they were recognized for their work, supported on the job, and were also part of a friendly environment that marked holidays with events like potluck dinners.

But the corporate culture changed as the contractors were added. The holiday potluck dinners ended while Indian workers were taken out to lunch on a major Indian holiday, the former Molina employees said.

Some meetings became so dominated by Indian workers that the discussions would sometimes shift to an Indian language, which added to a growing sense of isolation among the other Molina IT employees, the workers said.

"I've been to several meetings where it started off in English and then one of the Indian directors would start talking in Hindi, and then all the other Indians will start talking in the same language," said a plaintiff who asked to remain anonymous. "And then you would have to say 'hello, hello, we don't understand.'"

The HR manager who had been hired to manage the IT layoffs recalled an initial visit to the IT department. "When I walked in the IT department, all I saw were Indians. It was very difficult to find anybody in the immediate environment that was of non-Indian descent."

The former HR manager said the makeup of the department "was also a reflection of the leadership team ... the majority of [Desai's] direct reports were Indian."

The Molina workers said they trained Cognizant workers on the company's IT processes over time prior to the layoffs. They were told that the contractors were taking over all the production and their role would shift to new developments and technologies.

That explanation did little to lessen fears that they were being pushed aside. "There was a point where I felt we were just being written off," said David de Hilster, one of the laid-off IT professionals.

In the weeks leading up to the layoff, Molina employees began spending more and more time training Cognizant workers. The process became increasingly "urgent" and rushed, he said.

Another laid-off employee, Charles, said that "one person came into our department to learn all of our processes, which is impossible. We're multiple types of employees doing deployments, doing development work. No one person could possibly gather all that much knowledge in two weeks' time."

Desai's attorney, Raskin, wrote that his client "was trying to maintain quality and keep IT costs down at the direction of his superiors. To accomplish this, Mr. Desai worked with his managers to identify processes and projects that could be outsourced at a lower cost.

"The question was not: 'Whose job can we eliminate and replace with a contractor?' The question was: What processes are being done in-house that could be outsourced at a lower overall cost without sacrificing quality of efficiency?" he added.

Otto has assembled witnesses to support the lawsuit.

Among them is Laura Onufrock, Molina's former IT department budget manager.

In lawsuit filings, Molina said it compared the cost of imported labor to the cost of U.S. workers at the company and found that the average pay for U. S. workers was $50 per hour versus $72 per hour for the Indian contractors and $26 an hour for offshore workers, according to the lawsuit. Based on Onufrock's analysis, the lawsuit claims that after the mass layoff last year, the IT department exceeded its annual budget by over $5.5 million three months into 2010.

Onufrock isn't a plaintiff. Asked why she was acting as a witness in this case, she said, "they've done a lot of damage to people and I'm hoping I can help."

Molina disputes the contention that the outsourcing efforts didn't cut IT costs.

"American taxpayers are demanding that health care companies reduce administrative costs in order to provide better benefits at a lower price," the company said in a statement.

"Like most leading health care companies, Molina has put in place a variety of measures to reduce costs, including the outsourcing of labor-intensive administrative tasks to specialized firms. Working with Cognizant, an established leader in outsourcing, Molina embarked on a successful program to reduce its overhead so it could focus on what it does best: providing America's underserved communities with access to the best possible health care," the company said.

It is unclear how many Molina contractors were on either H-1B or L-1 visas, which are used for company transfers. The distinction is important.

Companies can hire H-1B workers without first trying to hire U.S. workers, unless they are considered "H-1B dependent" -- a status that applies to companies where more than 15% of the people in the workforce hold H-1B visas. Cognizant is in that category, but it doesn't have to prove that it tried to hire U.S. citizens before hiring H-1B visa holders for jobs that pay more than $60,000 and/or require master's degrees.

I don't think the H-1B dependent provisions are strong enough to protect U.S. workers," said Daniel Costa, an immigration policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute.

Molina, which employs 4,200 people, said it has less than 50 H-1B employees "and they were hired only in cases when it was necessary to cast a wider net for particular skills."

A Cognizant spokesperson said that the company has never had an employer-employee relationship "between the plaintiffs and Cognizant, and therefore the plaintiffs have no grounds for, among other things, the employment discrimination or wrongful termination claims against Cognizant."

Cognizant employs 118,000 people worldwide -- 20,000 in the U.S. The outsourcer doesn't disclose how many of its workers hold visas.

More in Government But the company did note that it has more than 60 full-time recruiters in the U.S., and that it recruited at 17 colleges and universities last year. It said it has 500 job openings in the U.S.

"Cognizant is a job creator that strives to provide our clients with the best talent available anywhere," the company spokesperson said.

A week after the layoffs at Molina, one of the fired employees said she was told by someone still working there that about 30 H-1B hiring notifications had been posted on a lunchroom bulletin board at the company. The posting indicated that U.S. workers couldn't be found for these positions. It is unclear what company was trying to fill the positions. But this wasn't the first time such notices had appeared, and it reminded this employee of what she had said earlier to someone in HR who was involved in recruitment.

"How dare you hire H-1Bs when there are so many unemployed Americans out there that fit the job description better?" the IT worker said.

Patrick Thibodeau covers SaaS and enterprise applications, outsourcing, government IT policies, data centers and IT workforce issues for Computerworld. Follow Patrick on Twitter at @DCgov, or subscribe to Patrick's RSS feed . His email address is pthibodeau@computerworld.com.

Black Staffer Slams ASPCA Brush-Off After Finding 'Noose' On Premises

2011-10-02T12:34:00.000-07:00

A black ASPCA employee who found a noose in the organization's Queens garage claims officials blew off her complaint and told her the hanging rope was for "operational purposes."

Sanoy Fleming, a part-time clerk in the records department, made the shocking discovery on Sept. 11 and used her phone to snap a photo.

Fleming, who has hired a lawyer, said a black colleague told her the noose had been hanging for several days in the garage of the spay and neuter clinic, which opened last June in Glendale.

"I was very upset, and it made me uncomfortable that no one thought it was inappropriate," Fleming, 40, told the Daily News.

"I explained to my supervisor that nooses were used to hang slaves, and I explained how insulting that is to African-Americans."

Fleming's supervisor apparently reported the incident to ASPCA higher-ups - four days later she was put on a conference call with the human resources department.

A man who identified himself as "George" warned Fleming that her work was not up to par.

"At the end of the conversation, he said, 'I heard you were upset about a rope found in the garage,' and he said that it was used for 'operational purposes' to lift things," the Brooklyn woman recalled.

Fleming, who also has a full-time job as a receptionist at a cosmetics firm in Manhattan, has retained lawyer Eric Sanders to protect her from retaliation.

"The person who put up that noose should be terminated to send a message that it will not be tolerated," Sanders said.

ASPCA spokeswoman Elizabeth Estroff said in a statement: "The ASPCA takes employee complaints very seriously and has a very strict policy against any form of workplace retaliation."

Fleming said co-workers told her the noose was fashioned by a white employee who has been instructed not to tie a knot like that again.

jmarzulli@nydailynews.com

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/09/26/2011-09-26_black_staffer_slams_aspca_response_to_her_noose_find.html#ixzz1ZeeOyI3W

Momentum to End Discrimination Against Unemployed Jobseekers Builds, but Discriminatory Ads Continue

2011-10-01T12:26:00.000-07:00

Mitchell Hirsch catches a whole bunch of discriminatory job listings showing up at CareerBuilder.com:

The latest examples appear two months after the National Employment Law Project (NELP) released a report detailing similarly exclusionary job postings this spring. Since then, federal legislation has been introduced that would ban hiring practices, including job ads, that discriminate against unemployed workers by excluding them from consideration for employment opportunities. As these harmful practices have attracted growing attention, one leading job site — Indeed.com — recently announced it would no longer post such exclusionary ads.

That’s even as the movement to ban such discrimination gains steam. Wednesday, Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Hank Johnson and Senator Richard Blumenthal, sponsors of House and Senate bills prohibiting discrimination against unemployed jobseekers, held a press conference on the issue, at which the unemployed, said David Elliot, a spokesman with the Washington-based USAction, a federation of 22 state affiliates that advocates for human- service programs and support for public education.

Already, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) took to the House floor to speak out against the idea as just creating another “protected class.”

Johnson said much of Republican objection is politically motivated.

“[Some Republicans] don’t want to see the president be successful.” He added the American people “are looking past the cynicism and they’re looking at their pocket books. … They want some action.”

There’s no question about the political motivations of Republicans—the question is if they’ll be willing to go to the mat against a bill simply saying that employers can’t flatly rule out hiring unemployed people, a type of discrimination a poll has shown people want banned by a two-to-one margin.

This post originally appeared at Daily Kos Labor on September 21, 2011. Reprinted with permission.

Disclaimer: The views of this post reflect those of the author and not of Workplace Fairness.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is labor editor at Daily Kos. She has a PhD in sociology from Princeton University and has taught at Dartmouth College. From 2008 to 2011, she was senior writer at Working America, the community affiliate of the AFL-CIO.

Court in Costco Discrimination Case to Employers: Don’t Fight Discrimination

2011-10-01T12:22:00.001-07:00

September 23rd, 2011 | Piper Hoffman

Plaintiffs suing Costco for sex discrimination face another round of litigation thanks to the Supreme Court’s recent dismissal of the Wal-Mart sex discrimination case. Because of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that the Costco trial court must reconsider whether the plaintiffs can prove that the company should be liable for sex discrimination in store-level promotions. On this question the Court of Appeals, like the Supreme Court before it, ruled the wrong way, discouraging companies from implementing measures that would prevent discrimination.

When companies leave employment decisions like promotions to individual decision-makers without giving them clear, relevant criteria to guide their decisions, those decisions are often discriminatory, albeit sometimes unintentionally. Many corporations, including Costco, provide no uniform criteria – or any guidance at all – for making promotion decisions. This leaves each individual manager (the vast majority of whom are male at Costco) to make promotion decisions as he sees fit. When making decisions with unfettered discretion, people tend to rely on stereotypes and to promote those they are most comfortable with and who are most like them – in short, in the absence of clear criteria, men usually promote men. Witness Costco’s demographics: female lower-level managers at Costco are less likely to be promoted than their male counterparts. It appears that only two of Costco’s top 34 executives are women. The problem is not a shortage of interested or qualified women: Costco’s competitors have a much higher proportion of women in management than Costco does.

Companies can prevent this kind of discrimination. Sociological research shows that holding top management responsible for establishing and enforcing uniform, unbiased promotion criteria goes a long way. When companies provide managers with performance-related criteria for promotion decisions, managers can evaluate whether a candidate satisfies those criteria instead of making a gut-level decision based on personal relationship or other irrelevant factors.

Companies can also prevent sex discrimination in promotions by increasing the pool of candidates. When employees don’t know promotions are available, managers may not even consider qualified women for the positions – they may not know them well, or may rely on stereotypes to conclude that they don’t want promotions. The Costco case illustrates these consequences: the three women who sued desperately wanted promotions, but none of them ever applied for one – they couldn’t, because Costco did not accept applications, and they never knew when promotions were available anyway. An easy fix is to inform employees of promotion opportunities and invite applications. Interested women will throw their hats in the ring and managers will evaluate them based on the relevant criteria, resulting in more promotions of women.

The courts in Costco and Wal-Mart ruled the wrong way because they discouraged companies from adopting these measures. They held that corporations are not liable in class actions for the discretionary decisions of individual managers, creating an incentive for companies to wash their hands of preventing discrimination in their ranks. The more anarchic the system for decisions about promotions and other perks – raises, bonuses, etc. – the more insulation the company has from discrimination class actions. The Costco decision quoted the Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart ruling on this point: “demonstrating the invalidity of one manager’s use of discretion will do nothing to demonstrate the invalidity of another’s. A party seeking to [bring] a nationwide class [action] will be unable to show that all the employees’ Title VII claims will in fact depend on the answers to common questions.” In other words, if the only thing promotion decisions have in common is that managers make those decisions however they want, the company as a whole is not liable for resulting discrimination. In contrast, if the company disseminates guidelines for making promotion decisions that result in discrimination, the company can be held liable.

Smart companies will adopt best practices like enforcing uniform criteria for promotion decisions, both to retain and get the benefit of employing talented people and to avoid discrimination suits by individuals, which are not affected by the Wal-Mart and Costco decisions.

The Court of Appeals sent the Costco class action case back to the trial court for reconsideration, giving the plaintiffs another chance. But the trial court will labor under the higher court’s instruction (again, quoting the Wal-Mart decision) that it “must determine whether there was ‘significant proof that [Costco] operated under a general policy of discrimination.’” Proving that Costco operated under a general policy of laissez faire will not suffice to save this sex discrimination case.

This post originally appeared on Piper Hoffman-Rock the Boat: Law, Society, and Social Justice on September 22, 2011. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Piper Hoffman is a writer and employee-side employment lawyer. She holds degrees with honors from Harvard Law School and Brown University. Hoffman blogs regularly on law and social justice issues at piperhoffman.com.

Kentucky Mine River View Coal Is Sued for Discrimination

2011-09-29T10:04:00.000-07:00

The EEOC is suing on behalf of Black applicants who say they were passed over for whites.

By Naeesa Aziz

Posted: 09/27/2011

A Kentucky coal company faces allegations of racial discrimination in hiring, according to a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Black applicants.

The suit alleges that River View Coal denied jobs in underground mining positions to a class of qualified Black applicants because of their race. The claims stem back as far as 2008 when hiring began for a new mine in Waverly, Kansas. Thirteen rejected Black applicants filed claims with the EEOC after being rejected without being given any reason why.

“Employers must choose employees based on their qualifications, and not on the color of their skin,” said Laurie A. Young, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Indianapolis District Office.

The agency claims that the mine violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for making employment decisions based on race.

River View Coal, LLC is a subsidiary of Alliance Resource Partners, LP and is the fourth-largest Eastern U.S. coal producer.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Sues Trucking Company for Sidelining Alcoholic Truck Driver

2011-09-09T10:12:00.000-07:00

As the actions of the federal government continue to spiral out of control -- with armed raids on Gibson Guitars, raids on Rawesome Foods and the assaulting of children's lemonade stands across America -- the insanity of government only becomes more apparent. In the latest example of regulations run amok, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is suing a trucking company called Old Dominion Freight Line for "violating federal law by discriminating against a truck driver."

In what way did the trucking company "violate federal law?" It sidelined a truck driver who was an admitted alcoholic!

The EEOC is now going to bring the full force of the federal government -- oops, I mean the "federal family" -- against this trucking company by making it reinstate the alcoholic truck driver so that he can cruise down the interstate at 70 miles per hour at the wheel of a twenty-ton rig loaded with who knows what.

This, you see, is the federal government "taking care of you."

Never mind the fact that most normal people would conclude that maybe people who are admitted alcoholics probably don't belong behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler on the interstate, but the federal government completely disagrees with that.

"Alcoholism is a recognized disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)," says the EEOC in a press release touting its lawsuit against the Old Dominion Freight Line "...and disability discrimination violates this federal law," it says. (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-16-11d.cfm)

The complete co-opting of the ADA

The Americans With Disabilities Act, of course, was intended to provide equal work opportunities for people who are truly disabled such as Vietnam War veterans who are missing a leg, or someone who was born without the ability to see or hear. And for that purpose, the law arguably has merit. But no one in their right mind would say that having an all-too-cozy relationship with a case of Jack Daniels is a "disability." But that's the new political correctness in Washington, it seems.

While I agree that people with substance addictions absolutely deserve help and treatment, even the federal government violates that principle with marijuana: Instead of treating people who smoke too much pot as "pot-aholics" -- who should, under federal logic, be "protected" as being disabled -- they are arrested and prosecuted as criminals. So how is alcohol abuse a disability but pot abuse is a felony crime? Only the goons in Washington could come up with something that offensively contradictory and punitive.

Keeping the roads more dangerous for the rest of us

Common sense, of course, has been all but abandoned at the federal government. At what point did alcoholism grant truck drivers immunity from being fired, anyway? Obviously, people who have habits or physical disabilities that prevent them from safely operating a large vehicle should not be allowed to operate such vehicles on the roads. Someone who suffers from frequent seizures, for example, shouldn't be given a license to operate a freight truck. Their health condition is regrettable, but their right to drive with seizures does not outweigh the public's expectation of reasonable safety on the roads.

The federal government doesn't understand this commonsense logic, you see. If a seizure can be classified as a "disability," then the EEOC would sue trucking companies for removing seizure-stricken drivers from the road, too!

Got a drinking problem? Get a job at a trucking company. You can't be fired because your job is protected by the federal government! Just tell your boss you're an alcoholic, claim it's a "disability" and invoke the EEOC to threaten to sue your employer!

But if you work at Gibson Guitar making fine musical instruments out of wood imported from India, then you're suddenly a criminal according to the government, which raided the Gibson Guitar company and now demands they export American jobs overseas because it is illegal for U.S. workers to "process" that wood in America! Incredible...

Is my disability protected by the ADA, too?

Hey, I have a disability too (sarcasm). It's called common sense. It's some kind of weird disease that makes me think bizarre thoughts like maybe we shouldn't have alcoholics driving 18-wheelers down the interstate. My disability also makes me believe that "disabilities" means people who are physically challenged because of catastrophic injuries or birth defects (for example), not behavioral habits like biting your fingernails, or sleeping really late every day.

Under the fed's rules, someone could get a job at the U.S. Post Office, but show up late for work at 11 a.m. every day and claim they have a "sleeping disability" that causes them to sleep late. Is this a protected disability, too?

I say that all these made-up, fictitious, totally bogus "disabilities" are damaging the very concept of "disabled" and making circumstances more difficult for those who are truly disabled. I completely agree it is ethically and morally wrong to fire someone just because they happen to be in a wheelchair, for example, or if they have a hearing disability. If you're visually impaired, that's a legitimate disability and deserves extra consideration by your employer. But don't tell me that every guy who tips back a few too many beers is now suddenly "disabled" as well. It's ludicrous!

We need to grow up in America and stop acting like little children who need their nanny parental government to take care of everything. If someone has a drinking problem, they need to man up about it and take responsibility for their own behaviors, and the government needs to stop coddling them as some sort of "protected" class. Go get counseling. Visit AA meetings. Find a local pastor who can offer guidance. But don't run around like you're some sort of "disabled" person who is supposed to be protected by the federal government.

Drinking is a choice, not a disability. You can choose to do something different. Yes, it's hard. Yes, it takes therapy, or help from your friends, or whatever. Life is hard, but grow up. Be an adult. Take responsibility for your actions and make better choices. That's what adults do, y'know?

There are far too many people gaming the system for their own selfish reasons and thereby diluting the very definition of "disabled." In a similar way, let me relate to you a true story from my past:

How a white guy was awarded a black scholarship

When I was in college, I remember this white guy who lived down the hall in my dorm. He was a great card player and always seemed to come out on top of the late-night poker games that went on there (I never took part, but I saw them playing a lot). The reason I say he was a "white guy" is because toward the end of our first semester there, he revealed to a bunch of us sitting in the dorm lobby that he was paying his way through college with grant money he received from a black scholarship fund.

Huh? A black scholarship fund? But this guy was white, wasn't he? Well, it turns out his great, great, great grandma was black. So genetically speaking, he was "just enough black" to qualify for this scholarship, even though his skin color was as white as mine! In other words, the chance of this guy being discriminated against due to the color of his skin was zero, given that his skin was as white as all the other white guys there. In fact, when he announced he was paying for college on a black scholarship, nobody believed him at first. We thought he was joking.

But he wasn't. Turns out it was all true. And the point of this is that by applying for this "black scholarship" grant and taking the money, this white guy was effectively using money that should have legitimately gone to a black guy! As a result, some other truly black guy did NOT get that scholarship money and was therefore not able to pay his way through college.

So while our little friend technically claimed to be a black guy riding on a black scholarship, all the rest of us knew he was really a white guy who gamed the black scholarship fund application process and thereby took money out of the hands of some equally deserving black guy who was really black.

You see, while I honor and respect people who have true physical disabilities, or people who have been truly discriminated against for no reason other than the color of their skin, I absolutely abhor fakers who hide behind these protections to try to game the system and exploit situations for their own selfish gain, usually at the expense of someone else. The "white guy" who took black scholarship money was exploiting the system for his own selfish gain, not even considering the true intent of that scholarship fund. Likewise, someone who hides behind alcoholism as a protected disability is gaming the system, too. Sure, alcoholism is a real behavioral issue to deal with, but it's not like missing a leg, okay? It's not the same as growing up without the gift of functioning vision.

Much the same thing goes for those handicapped parking spaces. They should be reserved for people who truly cannot walk long distances, or who need wheelchairs to get around. Have you ever heard of people being awarded those handicapped parking tags for obscure conditions such as having Tourette's Syndrome? I don't know if that's ever actually happened outside a Larry David episode (Curb Your Enthusiasm), but I have seen people park in handicapped parking spaces and just waltz right into the store with no obvious disability whatsoever. Those spots should be reserved for people in wheelchairs, I say... or people who can barely walk, people on oxygen supplies, and so on.

We must discern the difference between real disability and clever excuse-making

If we are going to respect and honor the people with real disabilities in this country, we've got to stop coddling those with behavioral habits that are simply being relabeled as disabilities. Much the same thing goes on in psychiatric medicine, where normal behaviors of teenage boys are labeled "disorders" and then treated with dangerous mind-altering medications.

Having loads of energy and an inability to sit still isn't a "disease," folks. It's called being a 9-year-old boy!

It's time to cut the nonsense with bogus disabilities, false labels and government interference with the rational decisions made by employers. If an employer fires someone merely because they are in a wheelchair, that's discrimination against the disabled, and that deserves to be scrutinized. But if an employer fires an alcoholic to prevent them from driving big rigs down the road while sloshed over from too many drinks, that's just common sense. Maybe Old Dominion Freight Line was actually saving lives by sidelining this alcoholic driver, huh? Did the feds ever think of that?

Only in America are businesses which act out of a desire to protect public safety punished with federal lawsuits. Only in America are people with common sense labeled "terrorists" (i.e. Ron Paul supporters) while those with bad habits who eat too much or drink too much are labeled "disabled."

Let's save the labels for cases where they are truly justified, folks. There are millions of people in America with legitimate disabilities -- people who cannot walk, or who are missing an arm, or who are hearing or vision impaired, for example. They deserve society's support and protections, and we should make every effort (as employers or neighbors or just friends) to honor these people for who they are while offering assistance where needed.

And if you're white, please do not apply for black scholarships, for god's sake. Let that money go to its intended recipients.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033527_equal_opportunity_alcoholism.html#ixzz1XTZOfhCY

NYU Pays $210,000 to Worker Ridiculed as 'Monkey' and 'Gorilla' by Supervisor

2011-08-18T07:11:00.001-07:00

An African immigrant received a $210,000 payout from NYU after his abusive mailroom supervisor repeatedly ridiculed him as a "monkey" and a "gorilla."

"Do you want a banana?" his boss asked NYU employee Osei Agyemang in one of many racist remarks reportedly made to the native of Ghana from July 2007 through January 2009.

The boss mocked the immigrant's accent as "gibberish," while telling him "go back to your cage" and "go back to the jungle," according to a September 2010 suit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The settlement between the Manhattan university and the one-time worker at the Bobst Library was made public yesterday.

"This suit shows that ugly harassment and retaliation can happen anywhere, even at a prestigious university," said EEOC attorney Gilliam Thomas, who represented Agyemang.

The lawsuit accused NYU of ignoring Agyemang's complaints about the stinging insults and racist cracks made while he worked in the library.

According to the suit, the harassment ended only after Agyemang's request for a transfer was granted. "This case goes back some years and involves the actions of an employee who is no longer with the university," said a statement from NYU spokesman John Beckman.

"Such behavior is extremely rare here, and totally at odds with the spirit of diversity and tolerance for which NYU is rightly known."

As part of the deal, NYU agreed to enhanced anti-discrimination policies to help prevent similar incidents.

Appeals Court Reinstates African-American Firefighter Suit

2011-08-16T09:22:00.001-07:00

By Basil Katz

NEW YORK, Aug 15 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday reinstated a suit against the City of New Haven by an African-American firefighter who claimed the city's firefighter promotion exams were discriminatory.

In his opinion, chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, said that African-American firefighter Michael Briscoe was not precluded from suing New Haven, Connecticut. The ruling was surprising because a related, earlier ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court compelled New Haven to abide by the exam results. Jacobs' decision vacates a district court finding that sided with the city .

The case dates back to 2003, when New Haven sought to discard the results of a firefighter promotion exam where white firefighters significantly outperformed minorities. That act prompted a group of white firefighters and one hispanic firefighter to challenge the decision and sue New Haven.

The Supreme Court took up the case, Ricci v. DeStefano, in 2009. The court sided with the firefighters, ruling that New Haven had not shown sufficent evidence to prove that keeping the test results would have made it subject to disparate-impact liabity. Disparate impact laws were cemented under Title VII of the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights law.

Normally, that decision would have ended further litigation. But because Briscoe brought his claim separately, Jacobs ruled he had standing to sue New Haven, in spite of the conflicting Supreme Court decision.

In his opinion on Monday, Jacobs said that New Haven could not use the Supreme Court to shield it from Briscoe's disparate impact claims, and that the high court's opinion did not preclude him from suing.

"I think the opinion is essential to maintaining the vitality of the disparate impact theory of liability under Title VII," Briscoe's attorney, David Rosen, said.

Title VII, Rosen said, protects "against the arbitrary use of selection devices that continue to be barriers to employment for well-qualified workers across America who happen not to be good at the particular pencil and paper, multiple choice-format quiz that some employers still insist on using."

"At the end of the day, the City of New Haven believes that the U.S. Supreme Court held that certification of the promotional exams at issue in the Ricci v. DeStefano case should not result in disparate impact liability by African American firefighters after the fact," said City of New Haven Corporate Counsel Victor Bolden

The 2003 New Haven firefighter test at issue was 60 percent written and 40 percent oral. Briscoe in his lawsuit said that under a 30 percent written, 70 percent oral test he would have been promotable.

The case is Michael Briscoe v. The City of New Haven, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 10-1975.

Great Lakes Chemical Corporation Settles EEOC Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

2011-08-03T09:19:00.001-07:00

Manufacturer Unlawfully Terminated Black Employees, Federal Agency Charges

EL DORADO, Ark. – Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, a manufacturer and seller of chemical products in El Dorado, Ark., will pay $80,000 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging racial discrimination, the agency announced on July 12th.

The EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-01042) alleged that Great Lakes violated federal anti-discrimination law when it terminated several black employees because of their race. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Great Lakes terminated black employees based upon discriminatory and subjective evaluations.

Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

"The EEOC remains committed to promoting equality of opportunity in the workplace for members of all races. We believe the decree entered by the Court will ensure that African American employees are not singled out for discriminatory treatment,"said Regional Attorney Faye A. Williams of the EEOC's Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee, and certain counties in Mississippi.

In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit enjoins Great Lakes from terminating employees in its El Dorado central location’s Inorganic Bromine (IOB) Unit on the basis of race. Great Lakes will also provide race and color discrimination training to all supervisory and management personnel in its IOB Unit and post a notice reinforcing the company’s policies on Title VII.

According to its website, Great Lakes is a business of Chemtura Corporation, a global specialty chemicals company. It is one of the three largest developers and manufacturers of bromine and bromine-based products.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-12-11.cfm

Fired Army Whistleblower Receives $970K for Exposing Halliburton No-Bid Contract in Iraq

2011-07-28T13:48:00.000-07:00

Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse, the former chief oversight official of contracts at the Army Corps of Engineers, has reached a $970,000 settlement six years after she was demoted for publicly criticizing a multi-billion-dollar, no-bid contract to Halliburton—the company formerly headed by then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

Greenhouse had accused the Pentagon of unfairly awarding the contract to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root. Testifying before Congress in June 2005, she called the contract the worst case of government abuse she had ever witnessed in her 20-year career. Just two months after that testimony, Greenhouse was demoted at the Pentagon, ostensibly for "poor performance."

She had overseen government contracts for 20 years and had drawn high praise in her rise to become the senior civilian oversight official at the Army Corps of Engineers. With the help of the National Whistleblowers Center, Greenhouse filed a lawsuit challenging her demotion. In a Democracy Now! broadcast exclusive, Greenhouse announces that a settlement has been reached in what is seen as a major victory for government whistleblowers. We’re also joined by Greenhouse’s attorney, Michael Kohn, and by Stephen Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center.

Jackson Park Hospital Sued By EEOC For Race Discrimination And Retaliation

2011-07-17T10:28:00.000-07:00

Federal Agency Charged Black Female Employees Were Segregated in Job Assignments

CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a class race discrimination lawsuit in federal district court here on July 14th against Jackson Park Hospital and Medical Center. The EEOC charged that the hospital, on Chicago’s South Side, subjected a class of black female employees to different terms and conditions of employment and segregation in job assignments because of their race. The suit also alleged that at least one of the women was demoted in retaliation for opposing and complaining about unlawful employment practices.

John Rowe, the director of the EEOC’s Chicago District, said the agency’s administrative investigation revealed that numerous black female medical technicians at Jackson Park appear to have been required to perform assignments that their male counterparts who were not black were allegedly not required to perform.

Race discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v Jackson Park Hospital and Medical Center, N.D. Ill., No. 11 C 04743, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit has been assigned to District Judge Milton Shadur and Magistrate Judge Gilbert. The EEOC’s litigation of the case will be led by Trial Attorney June Wallace Calhoun and Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.

“There’s a word for assigning work on the basis of race,” said Rowe. “It’s segregation—and it has long been prohibited by federal law.”

EEOC Chicago District Regional Attorney John Hendrickson added, “This case appears to be one of an increasing number which involve retaliation. That’s something we are always on the watch for and always want to challenge. Retaliation damages everyone—individuals, employers, and the public interest—so we are not inclined to let it slide.”

The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-14-11a.cfm

---------------------------------------------------

Black institution Accused of Racial Bas — Against Black Workers

July 17, 2011

Jackson Park Hospital on South Stony Island is about the last place job discrimination should be an issue.

A black man, Merritt J. Hasbrouck, is at the helm of the 52-year-old institution.

The vast majority of the hospital’s 560 employees are black, and nearly all of the patients in the 336-bed facility are black, as are the residents in the surrounding area.

When you get right down to it, Jackson Park Hospital and Medical Center is not just a hospital. It is a black institution and an anchor on the Far South Side.

But last Friday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class-action race discrimination lawsuit in federal district court against the hospital. The agency alleges the hospital discriminated against black female respiratory therapists.

“We were obviously aware of the community served by the hospital, and the composition of its patients and its staff and recognize that there might be some issues raised because of that,” John C. Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC, told me.

“We felt there was enough evidence here that a lawsuit was appropriate.”

I reached out to officials at Jackson Park Hospital, some of whom I’ve met in the past at social functions.

“No comment,” is all anyone would utter.

I couldn’t really blame them. This is awkward.

According to the lawsuit, black female employees “were subjected to different terms and conditions of employment and segregation in job assignments on the basis of their race and sex.”

When Rosie McGee, the employee named in the class action, complained about the disparate treatment, she was harassed and demoted, the EEOC alleges.

The group that allegedly discriminated against these black women, were Asian-Indian males. The supervisor in the department was also Asian-Indian.

An EEOC investigation that led up to the lawsuit found that while the black female respiratory therapists were required to administer EKGs, none of their male Asian-Indian counterparts were asked to perform this task.

The EEOC makes no allegation about why the Asian-Indian males were not assigned to administer EKGs.

But that is the question.

What is it about EKGs that someone apparently felt black female employees should do them, but Asian-Indian males shouldn’t have to?

Unfortunately, this fight has been brewing for a long time, not necessarily at Jackson Park Hospital, but in the health-care industry.

For instance, I’ve received complaints from black nurses at other hospitals who complain that they are being discriminated against by non-white supervisors.

Hendrickson acknowledges that the Jackson Park Hospital case is very odd.

“You appear to be dealing with discrimination of minorities by other minorities,” he said.

The federal agency is asking that McGee receive back pay, and that the other black female employees be compensated for their emotional pain, humiliation and inconvenience.

The last time I was at Jackson Park Hospital was nearly a dozen years ago. When a relative had reached her bottom, Jackson Park was the only place that had a bed available for detox.

Despite the circumstances, the doctor, nurses, and staff — all of whom were black — treated this patient with an unexpected level of compassion. I left my loved one there grateful that so many good people were using their talents to help patients in this underserved community.

These good people should not have to worry about discrimination in the workplace.

More importantly, this lawsuit shows although the EEOC has been criticized for not doing enough, it is still willing to take on some challenging cases.

That’s why people who believe they have suffered retaliation for speaking out against discrimination in the workplace shouldn’t be afraid to speak out and to seek the agency’s help.

It may seem irrational that black employees who work in a black facility, caring for black people in a black community would have cause to file a racial discrimination suit.

But, racial bias — no matter who is doing it — never makes sense.

EEOC Sues Houston Strip Club Over Alleged Discrimination

2011-07-04T16:24:00.000-07:00

HOUSTON -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing a southwest Houston strip club for alleged discrimination.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday against Michael's International, which is located in the 6400 block of the Southwest Freeway.

It states that in September of 2007 a group of African-American waitresses were told they could not work at the club.

“Regardless of the business you are in, the law is the law and you can't discriminate against people because of their race,” said Timothy Bowne of the Houston office of the U.S. EEOC.

The trouble came when Bert Stair, who is a vice president of Michael’s, was visiting the club from Dallas.

"Houston managers said that Stair did not like African-American waitresses and dancers in his club," according to the lawsuit.

Specifically, the waitresses said that they were asked to leave work or hide in a back room.

"To at least one of these waitresses he used the ‘N’ word and said, ‘What are you doing here? We don't want anymore of these ‘N’s working here, we have too many of these ‘N's here already," said Timothy Bowne, the senior trial attorney on the case for the EEOC.

There is no official comment from Michael's about the lawsuit but a manager said he was shocked by the lawsuit because the club now markets itself as multi-racial.

What is happening inside now does not get the club off the hook for past actions, especially ones that make no sense to government attorneys like Bowne.

"There is even less of a reason to believe that the clientele would be bothered by their race if the entertainment that they came to see was the dancers, and not the waitresses," he said.

The EEO said it tried to settle the claims before going to court but said the club and its parent company have refused to cooperate.

Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Class-Action Bias Case

2011-06-22T14:02:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday threw out an enormous employment discrimination class-action suit against Wal-Mart that had sought billions of dollars on behalf of as many as 1.5 million female workers.

A Death Blow to Class Action?
By siding with Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court has signaled that it wants job bias disputes handled in the workplace, not the courts.

Demonstrators gathered in front of the Supreme Court in March to show their support for female workers suing Wal-Mart.

The suit claimed that Wal-Mart’s policies and practices had led to countless discriminatory decisions over pay and promotions.

The court divided 5 to 4 along ideological lines on the basic question in the case — whether the suit satisfied a requirement of the class-action rules that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class” of female employees. The court’s five more conservative justices said no, shutting down the suit and limiting the ability of other plaintiffs to band together in large class actions.

The court was unanimous, however, in saying that the plaintiffs’ lawyers had improperly sued under a part of the class-action rules that was not primarily concerned with monetary claims.

Business groups welcomed the decision, and labor and consumer groups strongly criticized it. But all agreed it was momentous.

“This is without a doubt the most important class-action case in more than a decade,” said Robin S. Conrad, a lawyer with the litigation unit of the United States Chamber of Commerce, the business advocacy group.

The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had, in fact, discriminated against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of other class-action suits, including ones brought by investors and consumers, because it tightened the definition of what constituted a common issue for a class action and said that judges must often consider the merits of plaintiffs’ claims in deciding whether they may proceed as a class.

“You will have people invoking the decision in lots of different cases,” said Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University specializing in class-action law. “The Supreme Court has said that it’s O.K. to look at the merits of the lawsuit to decide whether to allow it to go forward at the earliest possible moment.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the women suing Wal-Mart could not show that they would receive “a common answer to the crucial question, why was I disfavored?” He noted that the company, the nation’s largest private employer, operated some 3,400 stores, had an expressed policy forbidding discrimination and granted local managers substantial discretion.

“On its face, of course, that is just the opposite of a uniform employment practice that would provide the commonality needed for a class action,” Justice Scalia wrote. “It is a policy against having uniform employment practices.”

The case involved “literally millions of employment decisions,” Justice Scalia wrote, and the plaintiffs were required to point to “some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together.”

The plaintiffs sought to make that case with testimony from William T. Bielby, a sociologist specializing in social framework analysis.

Professor Bielby told a lower court that he had collected general “scientific evidence about gender bias, stereotypes and the structure and dynamics of gender inequality in organizations.” He said he also had reviewed extensive litigation materials gathered by the lawyers in the case.

He concluded that Wal-Mart’s culture might foster pay and other disparities through a centralized personnel policy that allowed for subjective decisions by local managers. Such practices, he argued, allowed stereotypes to sway personnel choices, making “decisions about compensation and promotion vulnerable to gender bias.”

Justice Scalia rejected the testimony, which he called crucial to the plaintiffs’ case.

“It is worlds away,” he wrote, “from ‘significant proof’ that Wal-Mart ‘operated under a general policy of discrimination.’ ”

Nor was Justice Scalia impressed with the anecdotal and statistical evidence offered.

One of the plaintiffs named in the suit, Christine Kwapnoski, had testified, for instance, that a male manager yelled at female employees but not male ones, and had instructed her to “doll up.” Justice Scalia said that scattered anecdotes — “about 1 for every 12,500 class members,” he wrote — were insignificant.

He added that statistics showing pay and promotion gaps between male and female workers were insufficient to show common issues among the plaintiffs, because discrimination was not the only possible explanation. “Some managers will claim that the availability of women, or qualified women, or interested women, in their stores’ area does not mirror the national or regional statistics,” Justice Scalia wrote. “And almost all of them will claim to have been applying some sex-neutral, performance-based criteria — whose nature and effects will differ from store to store.” Joseph M. Sellers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the majority had “reversed about 40 years of jurisprudence that has in the past allowed for companywide cases to be brought challenging common practices that have a disparate effect, that have adversely affected women and other workers.”

A Death Blow to Class Action?
By siding with Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court has signaled that it wants job bias disputes handled in the workplace, not the courts.

A lawyer for Wal-Mart, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., said the decision was “an extremely important victory not just for Wal-Mart but for all companies who do business in the United States, large and small, and their employees, too.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justice Scalia’s majority opinion on the broader point. But the court unanimously rejected the plaintiffs’ effort to proceed under a part of the class-action rules concerned mainly with court declarations and orders as opposed to money, one that did not require notice to the class or provide the ability to opt out of it.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented in part. Justice Ginsburg said the court had gone too far in its broader ruling in the case, Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, No. 10-277.

She would have allowed the plaintiffs to try to make their case under another part of the class-action rules. “The court, however, disqualifies the class at the starting gate” by ruling that there are no common issues, she wrote.

She added that both the statistics presented by the plaintiffs and their individual accounts were evidence that “gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s corporate culture.” She said, for instance, that women filled 70 percent of the hourly jobs but only 33 percent of management positions and that “senior management often refer to female associates as ‘little Janie Qs.’ ”

“The practice of delegating to supervisors large discretion to make personnel decisions, uncontrolled by formal standards, has long been known to have the potential to produce disparate effects,” she wrote. “Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware.”

Court: Chicago Must Hire 111 Black Firefighters

2011-05-14T11:06:00.000-07:00

By Don Babwin - Associated Press / May 13, 2011

CHICAGO—A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the Chicago Fire Department must hire 111 African Americans who passed a firefighters entrance exam 16 years ago and pay millions of dollars to thousands more who took and passed the same test.

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was the latest blow to the city, which has been on the losing end of court decisions regarding the 1995 test for years, including a 2005 ruling by a federal judge who said the test discriminated against black applicants and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that the candidates did not wait too long to sue the city.

An attorney for the black firefighter candidates said that the 111 jobs would be filled from the applicants who passed the 1995 test and their pensions would be adjusted as if they'd been firefighters since 1995. And, said Joshua Karsh, 6,000 others who also passed the test will divide "tens of millions of dollars" that would have been paid 111 firefighters from 1995 until today.

A spokeswoman for the city's law department called the decision a "partial victory" for the city because it reduced the number of African Americans the fire department must hire from 132 to 111. "Reducing the number of plaintiffs who are eligible reduces the damages," said Jenny Hoyle.

Hoyle said that the city was still calculating the damages as result of dividing the back pay of 111 firefighters among the 6,000 applicants, but that officials estimate the payout will be about $30 million.

The ruling stems from a test given in 1995 that was intended to measure an aptitude for firefighting. After the test, anyone who scored 64 or below was deemed not qualified, but officials told those who scored above that number that while they passed, they would randomly hire the top 1,800 who scored 89 or better.

Because only 11 percent of the African Americans scored 89 or better, the overwhelming number of applicants hired from that test were white.

Karsh said the test was discriminatory because there was no evidence that the applicant who scored 89 or better would be any better firefighter than another who scored a 64, and in fact in 2005 a federal judge said the test discriminated against black candidates. In her ruling the judge said the city knew the cutoff point was meaningless and would disproportionately exclude blacks from the pool of candidates most likely to be hired.

"If the city of Chicago had selected firefighters at random from all the people who passed the test it would have gotten a pool of equally capable firefighters and the pool would have been more integrated," said Karsh said. He said he did not know when the hiring might begin, but said that he expected it to start soon.

After the judge's decision, the city, which hadn't given another test since 1995 because of ongoing court challenges, gave another test in 2006. But that test was given on a pass/fail basis and that all passing applicants, and not just the top ones, were processed randomly for additional tests such as physical agility and background checks.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This

Ganley Lincoln of Bedford Settles EEOC Racial Harassment Suit for $300,000

2011-05-09T13:53:00.001-07:00

Former General Manager Jay Walsh Regularly Insulted and Mistreated African-Americans, Federal Agency Charges

CLEVELAND – Ganley Lincoln of Bedford, Inc., an auto dealership in Bedford, Ohio, will pay $300,000 to four African-Americans to settle a racial harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on April 20th.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Jay Walsh, Ganley’s general manager at the time, routinely used derogatory terms to refer to blacks, customers as well as employees, including the epithet “n----r.” Walsh, in referring to an older African-American employee, wished the “old n----r ... would hurry up and die.” Further, the agency charged, Walsh utilized a compensation system that disadvantaged black salespeople with regard to sales opportunities and commissions.

Racial discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, No. 1:07cv2829, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit provides for training on employee rights and employer obligations under Title VII, as well as supervisor accountability with regard to racial discrimination. The decree also requires Ganley to post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that provides the EEOC’s contact information.

“Racial harassment is utterly unacceptable and illegal,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. “It demeans the entire workplace as well as the direct victims. This settlement – both the monetary relief and the training -- will help ensure that African-Americans at this company will never have to face such abuse again.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-20-11c.cfm

LEGAL BRIEF: Ralph Jones Sheet Metal Settles EEOC Racial Harassment Suit for $160,000

2011-04-28T12:41:00.001-07:00

LEGAL BRIEF: Ralph Jones Sheet Metal Settles EEOC Racial Harassment Suit for $160,000
White Supervisor Routinely Insulted and Demeaned African-Americans, Federal Agency Charges

MEMPHIS, Tenn. – Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc., an architectural sheet metal company located in Memphis, will pay $160,000 to former African-American employees to settle a racial harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on April 22nd.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that a white supervisor and other employees subjected African-American employees to racially offensive comments. The EEOC charged that the supervisor regularly referred to African-American employees with the epithet “n----r” and used other slurs. In addition, the EEOC charged that racial graffiti was on display in common areas and on company equipment.

Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, No. 2:09-cv-02636, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, after first attempting to settle the matter through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary relief, the 18-month consent decree settling the lawsuit provides for training on employee rights under Title VII, and requires Ralph Jones Sheet Metal to maintain records of racial harassment complaints, provide annual reports to the EEOC, and post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that includes the EEOC’s contact information.

“Employees should not have to endure a racially hostile work environment as it is a violation of federal law,” said Faye Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office. “It is appalling that racial harassment and the use of racial slurs remain so pervasive in today’s workplace. The EEOC will continue to forcefully fight against this misconduct.”

According to company information, Ralph Jones Sheet Metal fabricates and installs architectural panels made from aluminum composite, copper and stainless steel.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-22-11.cfm

Black Capitol Police staff complain about discrimination

2011-04-20T13:02:00.000-07:00

By Debbie Siegelbaum - 04/19/11 05:47 PM ET

More than 50 black employees of the U.S. Capitol Police have filed a complaint Tuesday, alleging discrimination by the police force.

Their action comes 10 years after nearly 300 employees filed a class action discrimination lawsuit, a suit that remains unresolved.

In a press conference, members of the U.S. Capitol Black Police Association announced they intended to file a classwide request for counseling with the Office of Compliance, which will “initiate a process that will in all likelihood lead to yet another discrimination complaint” filed against Capitol Police, according to association member and Capitol Police Lt. Frank Adams.

Cited as reasons for the action are reprisals, hostile work environment and discrimination committed against black employees by the Capitol Police, the Capitol Police Board and the senior employment counsel for both, Frederick Herrera.

“The United States Capitol Police Department continues to project a model culture of discrimination as reflected in a ‘modern day version of a 19th Century Southern Plantation in law enforcement,’” Adams said.

The U.S. Capitol Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In 2001, current and former black Capitol Police officers and employees filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, citing discrimination by the Capitol Police Board. Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Board has yet to be resolved, but the number of plaintiffs has been whittled down in the intervening years due to deaths or plaintiff settlements.

Current complainant and former Capitol Police officer Mary Rhone spoke of the bullying and harassment she experienced in her time on the police force, and called for an end to such conduct.

“I never thought that I would be standing here after 10 years fighting for the same justice that we fought,” she said. “And yet, I stand here today filing another complaint.”

Rhone also called on lawmakers to intercede in the matter.

“I would hope that after all these years that Congress would take a step, and while they’re fighting oppression in all the other states, that they would come on Capitol Hill and fight the oppression that we’ve been fighting for 10 years,” she said. “And yet they remain silent.”

According to the association, to date there are approximately 20 active and related discrimination cases alleging reprisals, denial of promotions to upper ranks, denial of career-enhancing training opportunities and a hostile work environment against black employees of the Capitol Police.

The association also alleges that the chief of police and members of the Capitol Police Board have done little to nothing to eliminate inequities, and black officers have been kept from the upper ranks of the police force.

Following the press conference, members of the association officially filed the complaint with the Office of Compliance.

“I will fight until I have no more breath in me because discrimination is something I will not stand for, and this organization will not stand for,” Rhone said of the action. “And I will file as many complaints as it takes.”

LEGAL BRIEF: Channel 25 (Oklahoma) Settles EEOC Race and Sex Bias Suit

2011-04-18T16:58:00.000-07:00

KOKH and Parent Company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Paid Black Female Reporter Less Than Coworkers, Federal Agency Charged

OKLAHOMA CITY – KOKH-TV (Fox 25) in Oklahoma City will pay $45,000 and additional consideration to a veteran African-American TV news reporter to settle a race and sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on March 3rd. The settlement terms are set forth in a proposed Consent Decree, approval of which is pending before the Court.

The EEOC charged that Phyllis Williams’ employers, KOKH and its parent company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, paid her lower wages than comparable white female reporters and male reporters of all races, and subjected her to unequal terms and conditions of employment until August 2007, when she signed an employment contract for a higher salary. Sinclair and KOKH had routinely offered employment contracts to other reporters at Channel 25. Williams has reported for Fox 25 since 1996.

Fox Broadcasting Company, which has an affiliate agreement allowing the station to use the Fox name, did not employ Williams and was not a party to the lawsuit.

Race and sex discrimination violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (EEOC, et al. v. KOKH, et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-01043-D) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

After the EEOC filed its charges, Williams intervened in the EEOC’s suit and added a retaliation claim under a separate civil rights statute known as Section 1981, which prohibits race discrimination and retaliation for reporting the same. KOKH and Sinclair agreed to resolve her Section 1981 claim in a private settlement for consideration in addition to the $45,000 being paid to resolve the Title VII claim.

In addition to monetary payment, during the three-year term of the consent decree KOKH and Sinclair must post an anti-discrimination notice, disseminate an anti-discrimination policy, and provide live training on preventing sex and race discrimination on at least an annual basis to all KOKH employees.

“This decree will remind KOKH Channel 25, Sinclair and all news organizations to treat their employees equally as required by law, including women and people of color, who traditionally have been the victims of job discrimination,” said Barbara Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Oklahoma. “The notice posting and training required by the consent decree will go far in educating the station’s managers on their employees’ right to work in an environment free of race and sex discrimination.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-3-11a.cfm

LEGAL BRIEF: Black Worker Suffers "Devastating Mental Injuries" in Physical Attack - $1 Million Judgment

2011-04-13T12:52:00.001-07:00

LEGAL BRIEF: Black Worker Suffers "Devastating Mental Injuries" in Physical Attack - $1 Million Judgment
When you think about some of the things many of us experience in the workplace, in regard to race-related abuses, you never expect to hear stories where the abuse became physical. In this legal brief, a Black female worker was harassed by a White coworker and this escalated into a physical assault that left her with permanent mental injuries.

I can think back to a friend/coworker having to deal with racially-based retaliation after complaining about comments from a White coworker. I remember her saying she had a bruise on her leg from this woman stepping into her as they passed each other. She said the woman was holding something hard and made sure it banged into her leg. And, my friend said it was becoming commonplace--this coworker stepping into her path so that she could bang into her. This was physical harassment!

Even though I believed her, she wouldn't make that up, I got to see it for myself, when I was walking down the stairs one day. This same woman, who was banging into my coworker, stepped into my path. She moved right into the middle of the stairs. We were either going to bang into each other or I was going to have to plaster myself to the wall to let her past. There was no way I could get past her. I remember thinking, "Oh my God! She's trying to run into me!" I literally had no way to get past her. Even if I stopped, she couldn't get by without running into me. She definitely wanted a physical confrontation because she knew I was friends with the person who outed her for racist remarks and reported it.

How did it end?

I can't tell a lie. I looked right at her and said...

"I will knock you down these stairs."

She plasted herself to the wall!

I'm glad she did because I think I would have pushed her down the stairs. I will not lie. I was preparing to put my hands on both of her shoulders and give her a good head over heels tumble down the stairs. She had been essentially assaulting my coworker and I took her actions as a direct physical threat to me. I did not take it lightly. When she came up the stairs, I was on the right heading down and she was on the left heading up. We were both using proper stairway etiquette. She looked up and saw it was me and, looking at me the whole time, stepped into the middle of the staircase. That registered as a physical threat to me.

As surprising as things like that were and still are to me, to hear about someone sustaining any type of mental injury from a physical assault is just upsetting. In the workplace? Really? This is what people do and are allowed to get away with.

Employers must do something about harassment and discrimination because if you tolerate it at all, you condone the behavior and embolden the perpetrator. That's how things can escalate, on either side. The perpetrator may attack the victim or the victim may just snap one day.

For more details on the legal brief, see below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Affirms $1 Million Judgment in EEOC Sex and Race Harassment Suit Against Whirlpool

NASHVILLE – A federal judge has affirmed a million-dollar judgment against Whirlpool Corporation in a sex and race harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the agency announced on April 1st.

Judge John T. Nixon denied Whirlpool Corporation’s motion to alter and/or amend the judgment of the court, entered on Dec. 21, 2009, that Whirlpool pay $1,073,261 in damages to the discrimination victim.

“This woman was victimized by serious, ongoing abuse, and was severely and permanently damaged as a result,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Faye Williams. “A sizeable amount of damages was called for, and we are pleased that the judge agreed.”

The EEOC’s lawsuit had charged that Benton Harbor, Mich.-based Whirlpool violated federal law when it tolerated the harassment of Carlotta Freeman, an employee at a Whirlpool plant in LaVergne, Tenn., by a white male co-worker because of her race (black) and sex. The abuse lasted for two months, the EEOC said, until the co-worker physically assaulted Freeman and inflicted serious permanent injuries.

During the four-day trial, the court heard evidence that Freeman reported escalating offensive verbal conduct and gestures by the co-worker over a period of two months before he physically assaulted her. The court heard that four levels of Whirlpool’s management were aware of the escalating harassment, but that Whirlpool failed to take effective steps to stop it. Further, Freeman suffered devastating permanent mental injuries that will prevent her from working again as a result of the assault and Whirlpool’s failure to protect her.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 3:06-0593) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. Following a bench trial, Judge Nixon awarded Freeman $773,261 in back pay and front pay, and $300,000 compensatory damages for non-pecuniary injuries.

On Jan. 15, 2010, Whirlpool requested that the court reduce the damages. The corporation claimed that the court had erred when, among other things, it awarded front and back pay without considering the fact that the plant where Freeman worked had closed. Whirlpool also claimed the court erred when it relied on certain information from Freeman’s expert witness.

In denying Whirlpool’s motion, Judge Nixon noted that it had “wide discretion to make whole the victim of unlawful discrimination.” For that reason, the court “declines to find that failing to so cut off the award of front pay to Freeman constitutes a clear error of law or manifest injustice.”

Carlota Freeman intervened in the case and was represented by Nashville attorneys Helen Rogers and Andy Allman.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-1-11.cfm

LEGAL BRIEF: Targeted for Filing a Previous Complaint

2011-04-13T12:47:00.000-07:00

The person in this Legal Brief filed an initial complaint of age discrimiation and then was denied a salary increase that was given to every other person of the same job classification. The purpose of this post is to remind everyone that if you have filed a complaint of any kind (age, retaliation, discrimination, gender bias, etc.), it is a violated of federal statutes to be targeted or treated differently than similarly situated/classified employees. Being treated differently could be construed as retaliation because you filed an earlier complaint. So age, in this case, can be substituted for race, color, etc.

Brooks County, Texas Sued by EEOC for Retaliation: Secretary in Treasurer’s Office Punished for Previous Age Bias Suit, Federal Agency Charges

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – Brooks County, Texas violated federal law by retaliating against a secretary in the treasurer’s office because she had filed an age discrimination charge and lawsuit two years ago, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed On March 31st.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Brooks County refused to give a salary increase to the secretary in the treasurer’s office despite all other secretaries in county offices receiving higher salaries. Brooks County explained to the EEOC that the secretary in question was at the “maximum salary set for her job position” and “the maximum salaries for all secretarial/clerical job positions within Brooks County have remained the same for the last four budget years and no employees have received salaries in excess of the budget amounts.”

However, when Brooks County provided salary information, it became evident that every single person on its list of similarly situated employees had received salary raises or were hired at higher salaries. The EEOC also said that when the secretary was facing the elimination of her job, Brooks County failed to hire her in an open position in the county library because of her pending second EEOC charge.

The EEOC contends that the county was actually punishing the secretary for filing an age discrimination charge and then lawsuit against the county in 2009. At that time she was an assistant auditor in the county auditor's office and she identified her boss as the perpetrator of age discrimination. Later that same auditor was the main gatekeeper on all of the requests for higher secretarial salaries.

Retaliating against people who oppose what they believe to be discriminatory conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division (EEOC V. Brooks County, Texas, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00086) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay and liquidated damages, front pay and injunctive relief.

“We have observed an increase in retaliation claims at the EEOC,” said Judith G. Taylor, supervisory trial attorney for the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office, which is handling this case. “In fact, retaliation now accounts for the most numerous kind of discrimination charge. Employers cannot ignore the fact that employees have a guaranteed right to voice opposition to any violation of the ADEA without fear of repercussion. Punishing employees who exercise their right to report discrimination is a violation of federal law and will be rigorously enforced by the EEOC.”

Pat Connor, trial attorney for the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office, aid, “Even a small county employer must follow the law. The EEOC will continue to defend federally protected rights of all employees, public and private, large and small.”

In fiscal year 2010, the EEOC received 36,258 charges of retaliation, accounting for 36.3 percent of all charges, making it the most numerous kind of discrimination charge. The agency also received 23,264 charges of age discrimination in that year. This was an approximate 40 percent increase over the last 10 years, and encompassed 23 percent of the nearly 100,000 discrimination charges filed in 2010 overall.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-31-11.cfm

Houston Black Firefighters Could Receive $300,000 Settlement

2011-03-24T14:53:00.000-07:00

March 23, 2011

HOUSTON — A more than $300,000 settlement has been proposed for seven black firefighters in Houston who claimed racial discrimination.

The measure was scheduled to go before the Houston City Council on Wednesday.

The Houston Chronicle reports seven firefighters passed exams for captain or senior captain in 2006, but many white firefighters scored higher. Because promotions were awarded to candidates with the highest scores, the seven did not make the cut. Three of the seven have since retired.

The settlement of the 2008 lawsuit includes cash and promotions.

City Attorney David Feldman says the settlement does not acknowledge wrongdoing by Houston. Feldman says the department this year will begin using a new exam, to make sure it does not produce results related to the race or ethnicity of firefighters.

Fired Metro CEO Alleges Racism

2011-03-16T11:27:00.001-07:00

Metro’s former CEO has sued the bus company and the local transit firm that employed her, claiming she was fired last year because of racial and gender bias and a management consulting contract laced with conflicts of interest.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Marilyn Shazor’s attorney, retired federal appeals court judge Nathaniel Jones, charges she was dismissed in August 2010 in part due to officials’ “stereotypical assumption that a single, minority mother would be unable to manage executive responsibilities at Metro in difficult economic times.”

The suit alleges that Shazor, a 46-year-old single mother of two, one of them a disabled daughter, was a “victim of conscious and subconscious stereotyped thinking” reflected in a performance evaluation process that differed from that of white and male employees.

“As a rare African-American woman CEO, she threatened and disrupted the ‘old boy network,’” the suit says.

The other major factor in Shazor’s firing, Jones argues, stemmed from an unusual contract under which she was employed not by Metro itself but by an outside company, Loveland-based Professional Transit Management.

Under that contract, the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, the board that oversees Metro, paid PTM about twice Shazor’s roughly $132,000 annual salary, with the additional money covering staff and other services periodically provided by PTM.

Metro spokeswoman Sallie Hilvers said Monday the company could not comment, but stressed that Shazor worked for PTM.

“At the time of her dismissal, Ms. Shazor was a PTM employee, not a SORTA or Metro employee,” Hilvers said. “All decisions relating to her employment were made by PTM.”

PTM officials did not return phone calls Monday.

'Caught in the middle'
Shazor’s job security became shaky, the suit alleges, amid moves to alter her PTM contract.

When SORTA’s chairwoman decided it made more sense for Shazor to be on Metro’s payroll, PTM executives viewed the plan as a threat to an arrangement under which it had been “pocketing a $12,000 profit each month on the back of Ms. Shazor and SORTA,” the suit says.

To protect its contract, PTM officials sought to discredit Shazor and to ultimately “eliminate (her) in a manner that would preclude SORTA from hiring her,” despite positive performance reviews, the suit says. Shazor, a West Point graduate with an MBA, , worked for Metro for four years, the final 2.5 years as CEO.

“PTM sought to maximize the fees it charged SORTA while SORTA sought to minimize its expenses,” the suit says. “Ms. Shazor, as CEO, was caught in the middle of the conflict and tension.”

There also were other occasions, the suit alleges, when Shazor’s “allegiance … to SORTA often put her in conflict with PTM, her legal employer.” For example, when PTM sought a contract for its parent company to operate the proposed Cincinnati streetcar – which SORTA itself wanted to run – Shazor sided with SORTA. On another occasion, Shazor angered PTM executive Tom Hock by questioning his effort to secure a SORTA strategic business planning contract for his wife, the suit says.

PTM officials plotted to undermine Shazor, the suit contends, by delaying her 2008 evaluation for four months and declining to conduct a 2009 evaluation, an “untimely and arbitrary” process not applied to white and male employees.

“Unlike any other white or male employees, she was allegedly terminated for poor performance, even though the only contemporaneous record of performance was ‘stellar’ and ‘satisfactory,’” the suit says.

Although PTM fired Shazor, the suit also faults unnamed SORTA board members for criticizing her performance and credibility via anonymous quotes in the news media at the time of her dismissal.

The fact that Shazor was “replaced by a woman of color,” Terry Garcia Crews – who also is a PTM employee – does not mitigate PTM’s actions, the suit concludes.

In addition to reinstatement, the suit asks for a financial award, including all lost pay and benefits and compensatory and punitive damages. SORTA, PTM, Hock and two unnamed SORTA trustees are named as defendants.

Atlanta moves to pay former parking enforcement officers $90K

2011-02-16T16:01:00.000-08:00

In 2008, the city of Atlanta laid off 21 parking enforcement employees in a move toward privatization and the hiring of PARKatlanta.

Now, three years later, Atlanta is stuck with the ticket. The city’s Law Department has recommended that the city dish out a total of $90,000 to the former employees who were fired to make room for PARKatlanta.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in July 2009 that the employees -- fired in May 2008 -- had hired a lawyer in an effort to get their jobs back.

The City Council still has to approve the payout.

Segregation, Slurs And Noose Charges Launched At Oil Company

2011-02-04T12:56:00.001-08:00

BATON ROUGE, La — About 230 current and former employees at a Louisiana-based oil services company have filed a civil rights lawsuit, saying they were forced to work in facilities where racist graffiti, slurs and discrimination are commonplace.

The lawsuit was filed this week in a Texas federal court against Turner Industries Group LLC, which is headquartered in Baton Rouge and has denied any harrassment or discrimination.

Black workers said Tuesday that they’ve complained for more than a decade about nooses hung in workplaces, racial slurs, segregated bathrooms and unequal treatment in Turner facilities in Louisiana and Texas. They said company supervisors and officials did little or nothing about the complaints and, in some instances, retaliated against the black employees for complaining.

Yvonne Turner, who said she has worked for the company at sites in both states, described showing up at a Sulphur, La., work site where a protective suit was stuffed, tagged with her name and hung from a noose. She said a supervisor laughed when told about it.

“I’m fed up. I’m tired,” she said after a news conference held with local civil rights leaders. “We’re not here trying to get money. We’re not here trying to cause trouble. We’re here for justice.”

Another woman, Cheryl Falola, described traveling to a work location where employees were separated by race and the black employees were sent home and replaced with white workers. She said at a different site she was repeatedly harassed by a white man who was working with her.

“Every day I would go to work he would throw racial slurs,” Falola said. “My stomach was hurting and knotting up because I know I have to work with that every day.”

In a statement, Turner said many of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit no longer work for Turner and some never worked for the company.

The company blamed a “lengthy campaign by plaintiffs’ attorneys in New York and Texas” for the lawsuit and said its records show few of those participating in the lawsuit ever reported discrimination complaints to the company.

“Make no mistake, Turner Industries stands for diversity and inclusion for all. Our record supports that. We intend to defend our company and the jobs of our 15,000 employees who are employed in various divisions of the company,” Roland Toups, Turner Industries’ chairman and CEO, said in the statement.

In April 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that black workers at the Turner Industries plant in Paris, Texas, were taunted with slurs, intimidation tactics and symbols of discrimination and were given lower-paying jobs and denied promotions. The EEOC said Turner managers were aware of the hostile work environment but didn’t make changes.

At the time, Turner issued a statement saying it disagreed with the findings and its own investigation didn’t find discrimination. Toups said the company has asked employees to make sure its facilities are compliant with anti-harassment policies.

“If there is a problem, we want to know about it so that it can be addressed,” he said.

James Vagnini, one of the lawyers representing the workers, said the lawsuit was filed because Turner did nothing to address the EEOC findings.

“Just three weeks ago, more nooses are up,” Vagnini said.

He said after the EEOC report, he received hundreds of complaints from current and former Turner employees who had worked in Turner facilities in Port Allen, Sulphur and Monroe, La., and in Paris and Beaumont, Texas.

At Tuesday’s news conference, lawyers for the workers handed out photos that showed racial epithets and swastikas scrawled on desks and bathroom walls and three nooses hung at what they said were different Turner job sites.

The lawsuit says black employees were forced to do dangerous tasks that white workers refused to perform and were passed over for better jobs in favor of white employees. The lawsuit says the discrimination grew worse after President Obama was elected.

The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District federal court in Texas.

Fiancé of Person Filing a Charge of Discrimination Protected From Employer’s Retaliatory Action, Court Rules

2011-02-02T08:12:00.001-08:00

LEGAL BRIEF: Supreme Court Upholds EEOC’s Retaliation Reach
This legal brief is important because it's a reminder that acts of discrimination and/or retaliation can go beyond the initial target and impact other workers. Many people find romance/love in the workplace. So, it's not uncommon to have people who are married or dating at the same job, even if they don't work in the same department. This legal brief is about the fiancé of woman who ended up terminated about 3 weeks after SHE filed a complaint of discrimination against her employer. That's pretty strong evidence that something strange was up. The time between the act that the woman took in filing the complaint and him being fired is extremely short and suggests that the two events are connected. See below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiancé of Person Filing a Charge of Discrimination Protected From Employer’s Retaliatory Action, Court Rules

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled on January 24th that the fiancé of a woman who filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), was protected from retaliation by their mutual employer and had standing to redress this illegal act. In a unanimous opinion, Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291, the Supreme Court held that long-standing EEOC interpretations of the scope of the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) applied to an individual harmed by retaliation, even if that person had not himself filed a charge of discrimination.

In Thompson, Miriam Regalado filed a charge of discrimination against her employer, North American Stainless (NAS). Three weeks after receiving notice of the charge from the EEOC, NAS fired Regalado’s fiancé, Eric Thompson, who also worked there. Thompson then filed his own charge, claiming his termination was in retaliation for Regalado’s initial charge. After the district court in Kentucky and the entire Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Thompson could not raise a retaliation claim because he himself had not filed a charge of discrimination, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and issued its decision reversing the lower courts’ opinions.

“We are very pleased with the Supreme Court opinion issued today,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The unanimous decision reaffirms the importance of preventing retaliation against those seeking to protect their civil rights.”

This past fiscal year, the EEOC received more charges alleging retaliation than any other basis, supplanting race discrimination charges for the first time in its 45-year history as the most numerous.

The EEOC enforces the federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information about the EEOC can be obtained at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-24-11.cfm

Northwest Cosmetic Labs Settles Discrimination Suit

2011-02-02T08:07:00.000-08:00

Company Fired Black British Intern Because of Race and Color, Federal Agency Charged

IDAHO FALLS, Idaho – Northwest Cosmetic Labs has agreed to settle a federal suit charging discrimination based on race, color and national origin and retaliation against a black employee for $30,000 and other relief, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on January 13th.

According to the complaint, the employee, a British subject born in Zimbabwe, was hired after a series of phone interviews for a full-time paid internship in cosmetic formulation. She did not interview in person because she was living in England at the time. Upon her arrival in Idaho Falls, she was told by her supervisor that employees at the company would likely be “surprised” to find out that she was black, since she was British. From the beginning, the EEOC said, she received little to no direction from her supervisors and was rarely given assignments, despite her repeated requests to be given work. Her treatment stood in stark contrast to that of the company’s two other interns, who were both Caucasian. They were given ample opportunity to participate in projects and to receive feedback from supervisors. After consistently receiving different treatment from her white counterparts and hearing more race-based comments, she raised these issues with management. Soon thereafter, the EEOC said, she was fired.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed this suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation. Under the consent decree settling the suit (EEOC v. Northwest Cosmetic Labs LLC, Civil Action No. 10-608-CWD, U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho) approved by Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale, Northwest Cosmetic Labs will pay the employee $30,000. In addition to the monetary payment, the company will adopt a comprehensive non-discrimination policy and complaint procedure, conduct anti-discrimination training for staff and management officials and submit semi-annual reports to the EEOC detailing any complaints of race discrimination or retaliation that may have arisen in the prior six-month period.

EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, "Employment decisions must be based on merit and ability, not race and color. We are pleased that Northwest Cosmetic Labs took this lawsuit seriously and that it will be taking steps to make sure that race and color are not a barrier to success in its workplace.”

“Instead of encountering the exemplary American values of justice and equality, this young visitor was treated to discrimination and punishment for standing up for her rights,” noted EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado. “Fortunately, this country also has an EEOC to fight for discrimination victims, and we will continue to do so.”

Located in Idaho Falls, Northwest Cosmetic Labs formulates and manufactures cosmetic products for third-party customers based throughout North America, Europe and Australia.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-13-11.cfm

Discrimination Suit Against Clear Channel

2011-01-08T13:30:00.000-08:00

Clear Channel properties in New Orleans include urban-themed stations Q93.3 FM and 98.5 WYLD-FM, and urban gospel station 1280 WODT-AM.Q93.3 and 98.5 WYLD-FM were the two top-rated stations in New Orleans in the most recent Arbitron ratings report.

There are seven black account execs who have attained council and filed a discrimination suit against the radio giant in that market. The executives accuse Clear Channel of paying lower commissions for advertising sales tied to local stations that reach a predominantly black audience.

They further charge that white account executives were given leads on preferred advertisers, hampering the earning potential of black salesmen and saleswomen.

Clear Channel rep Lisa Dollinger issued a press statement that read: “Clear Channel does not discriminate in its hiring or employment practices. These charges are totally baseless and without merit.”The company’s website touts the diversity of its employees as one of Clear Channel’s “greatest strengths” and stresses a zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind.

LEGAL BRIEF: EEOC Files Nationwide Hiring Discrimination Lawsuit Against Kaplan Higher Education Corp.

2011-01-06T16:20:00.001-08:00

Company’s Use of Job Applicants’ Credit History Discriminates Because of Race, Federal Agency Charges

CLEVELAND – Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, a nationwide provider of postsecondary education, engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination by refusing to hire a class of black job applicants nationwide, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.

Since at least 2008, Kaplan Higher Education has rejected job applicants based on their credit history. This practice has an unlawful discriminatory impact because of race and is neither job-related nor justified by business necessity, the EEOC charged in its lawsuit.

As a result of these practices, the company has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to the lawsuit (Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-02882) filed by the EEOC’s Cleveland Field Office in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. It is a violation of Title VII to use hiring practices that have a discriminatory impact because of race and that are not job-related and justified by business necessity.

The EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement before filing suit. The EEOC seeks injunctive relief in its lawsuit, as well as lost wages and benefits and offers of employment for people who were not hired because of Kaplan Higher Education’s use of job applicants’ credit history.

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to eliminate practices that serve as arbitrary barriers to employment because of a job applicant’s race,” said Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and portions of New Jersey and Ohio. “Employers need to be mindful that any hiring practice be job-related and not screen out groups of people, even if it does so unintentionally.”

Workplace discrimination charge filings with the federal agency nationwide rose to an unprecedented level of 99,922 during fiscal year 2010.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-21-10a.cfm

Civil rights leaders condemn ruling on use of word ‘boy'

2010-10-26T11:37:00.000-07:00

They protest a federal court's reversal of $1.75 million discrimination

A black Alabama man claims that his employer, Tyson Foods, discriminated against him by denying him a promotion and that the white plant manager where he worked referred to him as "boy." The man has won two trials and been awarded up to $1.75 million in damages, but the verdicts have both been overturned.

The federal appeals court in Atlanta found that the manager's alleged use of the term was "conversational" and amounted to "ambiguous stray remarks" that were not made in the context of employment decisions. The court said it found no evidence of racial animosity.

A group of 11 civil rights pioneers say that's nonsense. Andrew Young, Joseph Lowery, Fred Shuttlesworth and others have filed a brief saying that there's nothing ambiguous about the use of the word "boy" by a white man in reference to a black man. In a recent court filing, they are asking the appeals court to reconsider its decision.

The court’s reasoning “does not stand the test of history, experience, reality or the common social understanding of race relations in the country, particularly the South,” says their motion.

Read the full story in Wednesday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Former Fox News Employee Sues for $5M, Alleging Workplace Racism

2010-10-22T14:10:00.001-07:00

As The Huffington Post and others have reported, a former Fox News employee — Harmeen Jones — is suing the network and several of his former supervisors and colleagues, alleging that after he complained about workplace racism, he was fired.

The complaint — filed this week in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — is the latest in a long line of discrimination complaints against News Corp. and its subsidiaries.

According to Jones, his co-workers “continually made racist, sexist, and extremely offensive comments throughout the course of every working day … concern[ing] African-Americans, Arabs, Muslims, Hispanics, women, and Jews” and Jones was “treated in a hostile and threatening way due to his identification with the African-American race.”

Jones, according to the complaint, met with his Fox News supervisors about the offensive comments of one of his co-workers, but that co-worker was not reprimanded. After that incident, “the working environment got markedly worse for Jones.”

The complaint noted that “Jones was at a loss for what to do” and that “[Fox News Network's] employee handbook contained no information on what to do or who to talk to about racial harassment or discrimination.” The complaint also said “Jones spoke with other African-American FNN employees about the harassment, who told him to keep his head down and not say anything,” and other co-workers told Jones “there was no point in mentioning the racist comments and difficult work environment to Human Resources because they were friends with the people who were causing him difficulty.”

Jones later had what is described in the complaint as a “productive meeting” about the situation with the head of Human Resources for News Corp., “who seemed to care about the difficulties he was facing and wanted to help him.”

Though the News Corp. HR office facilitated a meeting between Jones and his Fox News supervisors that Jones perceived to be helpful, one week after that meeting, Jones was fired from his job with Fox News. According to the complaint, Fox News Director of Operations Steve Carey told Jones, “we gave you a chance, and you repay us by making complaints to HR? You’re terminated.”

The complaint describes several specific instances of workplace harassment, including one apparently triggered by footage of a “tea party” rally on health care reform:

One incident occurred during the debate over health care. While a few of the screens in the intake room were showing footage from a “tea party” rally on healthcare reform, Defendant McCool turned to Plaintiff Jones and said, in sum and substance, “this is what happens when you mess with white people’s health care.”

Another incident occurred during the 2008 presidential election campaign. Defendants Greco and McCool, sitting a few feet in front of Plaintiff Jones, discussed how they wouldn’t feel comfortable having a black president. Defendant Greco then looked at Plaintiff Jones and on information and belief saw that his comments had made him offended and uncomfortable. Defendant Greco then said, in sum and substance, “am I offending your blackness?”

Throughout Plaintiff Jones’ employment, Defendants Greco, McCool, and Rodriguez constantly told him in sum and substance “you look like a gangster” and “like you’re ready to shoot someone.”

Plaintiff Jones was subject to racist and demeaning comments at least everyother day throughout his employment at FNN.

Jones is seeking $3 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages.

Media Matters contacted Jones and he declined to comment, referring all calls to his lawyer, David B. Rankin, who was unavailable.

Austin Foam Plastics Pays $600,000 To Settle EEOC Harassment Suit

2010-10-21T13:37:00.000-07:00

PRESS RELEASE
10-15-10

Managers Engaged in Race and Female-on-Male Sex Harassment, Then Fired One Employee for Complaining, Federal Agency Charged

AUSTIN - Austin Foam Plastics, Inc., a producer and distributor of corrugated box and cushion packaging, will pay $600,000 to settle a racial harassment, sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC's lawsuit (Civil Action No. A-09-CA-180-LY) charged Austin Foam with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting African-American employees to a racially hostile work environment, subjecting two male employees to a sexually hostile work environment and discharging one employee for opposing and reporting the misconduct.

The EEOC said that the harassment included black employees being routinely subjected to discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, insults, racially offensive comments and jokes, cartoons and images which denigrated African-Americans. The EEOC also charged that a female manager sexually harassed male employees by subjecting them to unwelcome sexual comments and unsolicited physical contact of a sexual nature and that she conditioned more favorable terms of employment on acquiescence to her sexual advances and overtures.

Sexual harassment, racial harassment and retaliation all violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The remedies sought by the EEOC include back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for the victims, as well as injunctive relief.

“The law requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent and to correct racial and sexual harassment,” said David Rivela, senior trial attorney for the EEOC's San Antonio Field Office. “In addition, the law requires that employers refrain from retaliating against employees who oppose discriminatory conduct. The EEOC will continue to aggressively prosecute cases where employees are subjected to this kind of unlawful treatment in the workplace.”

Judith G. Taylor, supervisory trial attorney of the EEOC's San Antonio Field Office, added, “The EEOC is pleased that AFP has agreed to adopt and implement measures, such as training, to prevent future incidents of racial and sexual harassment.”

Race discrimination has been the most frequent type of charge filed with the EEOC since the agency's opening in 1965. In fiscal year 2009, more than 33,000 charges of race discrimination were filed with EEOC offices nationwide. Further, there were over 1,500 sexual harassment charges filed by males in fiscal year 2009.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Black D.C. Firefighters Allege Widespread Discrimination in Federal Lawsuit

2010-10-16T12:21:00.000-07:00

By Spencer S. Hsu
Friday, October 15, 2010

A lawsuit Friday by about 30 black firefighters alleges systematic racial discrimination within the D.C. Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services, claiming that black employees face harsher discipline, are promoted less often and confront a hostile work environment imposed by white supervisors.

The 31-page suit, which lawyers say was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, contains information potentially embarrassing to the department. It refers by name to at least 10 white firefighters accused or convicted of various misconduct. It also refers to black firefighters who committed similar offenses.

In a virtual rap sheet, the suit describes cases in which firefighters have been arrested for stalking, assault and illegal handgun possession; disciplined for fighting or injuring fellow firefighters with knives and plates; and investigated for e-mailing images of their sexual organs to female colleagues and cooking naked in firehouses.

"I have been trying disciplinary cases before the department for years, and time after time, I see that disciplinary actions taken against African Americans are different from disciplinary actions against whites for the same alleged offenses," said plaintiff's lawyer Donna Rucker of the D.C. law firm Gebhardt & Associates.

Pete Piringer, spokesman for the D.C. fire department, declined comment Friday, saying officials had not had the opportunity to review the lawsuit.

In its scope and specificity, the suit threatens to renew racial tensions in the 2,200-worker department, which was riven by similar disputes in the 1970s and 1980s.

The new case follows the May 2007 confirmation of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's choice for fire chief, Dennis L. Rubin, who is white, and the month before that, a federal jury's rejection of a reverse discrimination case brought by 23 white officers who alleged they were denied promotion.

The suit acknowledges that more than half the department is African American. But it claims that since October 2007, senior white officers have "created a climate of fear and intimidation" by abusing their power and punishing black firefighters of all ranks more severely.

It seeks class-action status for as many as 1,000 black firefighters.

In addition to the District, Fenty and Rubin, the suit names as defendants two other assistant fire chiefs, Lawrence Schultz, who is white, and Brian Lee.

While the basis of the new claims remain to be sorted out, the rival lawsuits by white and black officers echo the fierce racial litigation after the District achieved home rule in the early 1970s. As the predominantly white fire department began to mirror the majority-black city, whites and blacks split into different unions, sued, and each won court victories in proving they were victims of city policies over the next two decades.

Promotions that were halted because of lawsuits resumed in the early 1990s. However, they were interrupted again during the reverse-discrimination case in 2006.

The D.C. fire department promotes officers in part based on scores on promotional exams. According to the new lawsuit, a 2006 list of officers eligible for promotion included 18 black and 15 white firefighters. However, the black officers say that list was set aside after a 2008 examination included 24 white and nine black firefighters.

"The Department deliberately allowed the predominantly African American 2006 list to expire in order to promote white firefighters," the suit claims.

The suit also alleges that in 2010, when examiners were sequestered from test-takers, white officers received unauthorized private "coaching."

By comparison, the failed 2006 suit by white captains alleged that then-Fire Chief Ronnie Few, in choosing to interview 12 of about 55 captains eligible for promotion, selected black officers at a disproportionately high rate compared with the overall pool.

Specifically, the case's lead plaintiff, Lt. Gerald Burton of Lanham, alleged that he was suspended more than one week for violating operating guidelines in ordering his engine to put out a fire. He claimed that white firefighters, including Chief Rubin, received lesser or no penalties for violating the rules under less compelling circumstances.

LEGAL BRIEF: Settlement in Case of Retaliation for Complaining of a Racially Hostile Work Environment

2010-10-15T15:37:00.001-07:00

Mike Enyart & Sons Will Pay $87,205 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

Construction Company Fired Black Employee Because He Complained About Racial Harassment, Federal Agency Charged

BECKLEY, W.V. – A South Point, Ohio-based construction company will pay $87,205 in lost wages and punitive damages and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a federal race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on October 6th. The EEOC had charged that Mike Enyart & Sons, Inc. discharged Mareo R. Allen in retaliation for his complaints about a racially hostile work environment.

The EEOC contended that a foreman and co-workers repeatedly used racially offensive epithets and slurs to Allen and other black persons when Allen worked for the company on a sewer line installation project in White Sulphur Springs, W.V. The harassment included physically threatening and intimidating actions, such as cutting Allen’s belt with a knife while Allen was wearing it and showing him a swastika that had been spray-painted onto company equipment, the EEOC said in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Civil Action No. 5:09-CV-00921. The EEOC also alleged that Allen was terminated in retaliation for his opposition to the racial harassment.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment based on race. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who opposes racial harassment or discrimination. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $87,205 in monetary relief to Allen, the five-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins Mike Enyart & Sons from engaging in discrimination or harassment based on race or retaliation in violation of the Title VII. The company will offer to hire Allen as a laborer for the first available position after the consent decree takes effect. The consent decree mandates that Mike Enyart & Sons will implement and disseminate policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation and set up procedures for receiving and investigating discrimination complaints. The company must provide training on Title VII to all supervisors and managers and an additional eight hours of training on investigating and taking corrective action regarding discrimination complaints to all employees with those job responsibilities. The company is required to report to the EEOC about the company’s response to any complaints of alleged harassment or discrimination and post a remedial notice.

“We commend Mike Enyart & Sons for working cooperatively with the EEOC to reach a speedy and satisfactory resolution to this lawsuit,” said Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “The consent decree includes significant equitable relief that will benefit all company employees.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-6-10a.cfm

Papermoon Strip Club to Pay $95,000 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination Lawsuit

2010-10-14T14:59:00.000-07:00

Black Employees Subjected to Racism; White Co-Workers Punished for Complaining, Federal Agency Charged

MIAMI – The owners/operators of a Stuart, Fla., strip club will pay $95,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on October 7th. The EEOC had charged that Papermoon-Stuart, Inc., and Imaginary Images, Inc., a Richmond, Va., parent corporation, violated federal law when they subjected two black doormen to racial harassment, segregation, and differing terms and conditions of employment. The company also retaliated against white employees who complained, the EEOC said.

According to the EEOC’s suit, managers at the Papermoon club in Stuart referred to black employees using offensive racial slurs, forced black employees to work in the back of the club instead of at the club entrance, and complained that “black music makes the club look bad.” According to the suit, company managers did not stop the harassment, but instead either forced out or fired white employees who opposed the abusive conduct.

In addition to monetary damages in the amount of $95,000, the 30-month consent decree resolving the case (EEOC v. Papermoon-Stuart, Inc. and Imaginary Images, Inc., d/b/a Papermoon, Case No. 0:09-cv-14316-Martinez/Lynch, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Ft. Pierce Division) includes injunctive relief enjoining the company from engaging in further race discrimination; requires the posting of a notice about the settlement; and obligates the company to conduct training and to report information about race discrimination complaints it receives to the EEOC for monitoring.

“It is important for employers to recognize that this type of racial discrimination has no place in the modern workplace,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Robert Weisberg. “Employers must treat employees of all races with dignity.”

EEOC Trial Attorney Kaleb Kasperson said, “Employers must take swift action to assure that their workplace is free from racially offensive conduct. The law requires that the workplace be free from this type of blatant racism and segregation.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

La Quinta And Best Western Sued For Harassment

2010-10-07T09:51:00.001-07:00

EEOC Says Manager Verbally Abused Female Employees for Reasons of Race, Sex, Pregnancy and Religion

SEATTLE — Hotel group Pacific Hospitality violated federal law when it permitted a general manager to harass a group of female employees working at La Quinta-Federal Way and Best Western Tacoma Dome, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.

The federal agency alleged the general manager ridiculed employees, made demeaning comments about women in general and at least one African-American mother in particular and belittled employees for their faith in God. For example, he called Jennifer Watson, an African-American employed as a front desk clerk at La Quinta-Federal Way, a ‘welfare mother’ and implied that she should abort her pregnancy, according to the EEOC. Operations Manager Dana Miller and other female employees at the Best Western Tacoma Dome faced inappropriate comments about their physical appearance and personal lives, as wells as intimidation through yelling, fist pounding and graphic threats of physical violence. Many employees at both hotels felt they had no option but to quit, the EEOC said.

Harassment of employees based on their race, sex, pregnancy or religion violates Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. After first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation, the EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Pacific Hospitality, LLC, formerly d/b/a La Quinta Inn Federal Way and Seasons Hotel, d/b/a Best Western Tacoma Dome Hotel, CV-10-5715-BHS) in U.S. District Court for the District of Washington, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of Watson, Miller and other female victims, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of notices at the work site and other injunctive relief.

“This manager’s unchecked abuse of power devastated the lives of workers in two workplaces, and interfered with their ability to provide for themselves and their families,” said Luis Lucero, director for the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office, which investigated this case. “ By law, employers must protect their workers and take responsibility for the actions of their management.”

“No one should be forced to choose between personal dignity and their livelihood,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo, whose office has jurisdiction over Washington State. “The EEOC will vigorously champion the right of all workers to a workplace free from discrimination and harassment.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Additional information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-4-10c.cfm

Chapman University Sued For Race Discrimination

2010-09-26T10:23:00.001-07:00

Black Professor Was Denied Tenure, Then Discharged Because of Race, EEOC Charges

SAN DIEGO – Chapman University, a private university in Orange, Calif., violated federal law when it denied tenure to and then discharged a black professor due to her race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The university hired the professor in 2001 as an assistant professor of marketing for the George L. Argyros School of Business & Economics (ASBE). Despite strong recommendations in her favor by professional peers both inside and outside of Chapman University, a review committee denied the professor’s application for tenure and promotion to the position of associate professor in October 2006. Chapman’s board of trustees ultimately denied her tenure appeal and effectively discharged her in June 2008. The EEOC contends that non-black professors were promoted despite the alleged victim’s superior record in teaching, scholarship and/or service to the university and her profession. At the time of her application for tenure, the alleged victim was the sole black faculty member in a department of approximately 30.

The EEOC filed its suit against Chapman University in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division (EEOC v. Chapman University and the Board of Trustees of Chapman University, Case No. SACV10-1419-CJC ( RNBx)), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. According to the EEOC, the alleged acts of discrimination violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and front pay on behalf of the alleged victim, along with injunctive relief intended to prevent future race discrimination at the university.

“Although this country has made great strides in addressing race discrimination, racial barriers still persist,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Denying upward mobility to qualified minorities while promoting less qualified non-minorities exacerbates the glass ceiling that continues to ail the American workplace.”

Marla Stern, local director of the EEOC’s San Diego Local Office, said, “Situations like this, with apparent favoritism for less qualified non-blacks over well-qualified African-Americans, are not only unfair to the direct victims, they are counter-productive to the organization and help perpetuate injustice in our country. The EEOC will continue to fight such damaging discrimination.”

Founded in 1861, Chapman University is a private, non-profit university with programs in seven schools and colleges, and an enrollment of approximately 6,000 undergraduate, graduate and law students.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Black Dockworkers and Janitors at Trucking Giant Subjected to Nooses, Racist Graffiti, and Adverse Working Conditions

2010-09-21T14:26:00.001-07:00

LEGAL BRIEF: Black Dockworkers and Janitors at Trucking Giant Subjected to Nooses, Racist Graffiti, and Adverse Working Conditions, EEOC Alleged

$10 Million Consent Decree Ends Racial Harassment Case Against YRC/Roadway Express

CHICAGO – Federal Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox has granted preliminary approval to a $10 million, five-year consent decree which will end the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) race harassment and discrimination lawsuit against Roadway Express and YRC, Inc. In addition to the multi-million-dollar monetary relief, the decree enjoins future discrimination at the facilities and requires the appointment of a monitor to oversee its implementation.

In its suit, the EEOC alleged that the company subjected black employees at its Chicago Heights, Ill., and Elk Grove Village, Ill., facilities to a racially hostile working environment and racial discrimination in terms and conditions of employment. Roadway Express operated the facilities until its merger with Yellow Transportation, when the two companies combined operations to form YRC, Inc., in October 2008. It is now the nation’s largest less-than-truckload freight hauling company.

“It is dispiriting that the severe racial stereotyping and harassment alleged in this case continues to be a problem,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “This settlement embodies the agency’s 45-year struggle against this scourge on the American workplace.”

The EEOC was set to try this case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 12, 2010. The EEOC was prepared to present evidence that black employees were subjected to multiple incidents of hangman’s nooses, racist graffiti and racist comments, and racist cartoons. The EEOC also planned to present evidence that Roadway and YRC subjected black employees to harsher discipline and scrutiny than their white counterparts and gave more difficult and time-consuming work assignments to black employees than white employees. According to the EEOC, black employees had complained about a these conditions over the years, but effective corrective action was not taken.

“No one should have to endure degrading racial harassment in order to earn a living,” said P. David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC. “The EEOC is committed to ensuring that all employees have the opportunity to put in an honest day’s work free from discrimination.” Lopez noted that this consent decree is the latest in a series of large race harassment suits that the agency has resolved recently, including suits against roofing contractor Elmer W. Davis ($1 million), home appliance manufacturer Whirlpool ($1 million), national grocery chain Albertson’s ($8.9 million), and the Bahama Breeze restaurant chain ($1.3 million).

In addition to the payment of the $10 million, the consent decree enjoins YRC from engaging in discrimination because of race and from retaliating against individuals who complain about racial discrimination; requires the development of revised anti-harassment policies; specific recordkeeping and reporting of complaints; and annual anti-harassment training. The decree also requires YRC to retain consultants to examine the company’s discipline and work assignment procedures and recommend changes to prevent racial disparities. Finally, the decree requires the appointment of a monitor to oversee the company’s response to complaints and to report on the company’s compliance with the decree. The monitor will report semi-annually to the court and to the EEOC.

The consent decree, which was preliminarily approved by Magistrate Judge Cox yesterday, covers over 300 African-American employees who worked at the Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities as dockworkers and janitors from March 2002 to the present. Eligible claimants will be invited to participate in a claims process over the coming months. At the conclusion of the claims process, the decree and distribution schedule will be submitted to Magistrate Judge Cox for final approval.

The consent decree resolves three lawsuits that were to be tried together: the suit against the Chicago Heights facility (EEOC v. Roadway Express and YRC, N.D. Ill. No. 06 C 4805), and against the Elk Grove Village facility (EEOC v. Roadway Express and YRC, N.D. Ill. No. 08 C 5555), brought by the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination. In addition, 10 current and former employees intervened in the EEOC action (10 C 5304). The EEOC filed another race discrimination suit against YRC which is still in litigation (EEOC v. Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc. No. 09 CV 7693).

EEOC Chicago District Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said, “This consent decree is an important marker on the road to civil rights on the job. Unfortunately, the American workplace is not free from the racist symbolism of the hangman’s noose or the persistent sting of racist graffiti. But we are moving in a better direction, and we are hopeful that this decree will aid YRC in addressing these problems.” In addition to Hendrickson, the EEOC was represented by Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour and Trial Attorneys Richard Mrizek, Ethan Cohen, and Deborah Hamilton. The Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-15-10b.cfm

Judge OKs Kodak's settlement of race-based lawsuit

2010-09-04T15:19:00.001-07:00

By BEN DOBBIN

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — A federal judge on Friday approved Eastman Kodak Co.'s $21.4 million offer to settle class-action lawsuits by black employees who maintained white counterparts were favored over them for pay and promotion.

In an almost seven-year legal tussle, U.S. Magistrate Jonathan Feldman signed off on a deal that pays about 3,000 current and past Kodak workers amounts ranging from $1,000 to $50,000. The decision ends a 2004 class-action lawsuit and a similar suit filed by other black workers in 2007.

The Rochester, N.Y.-based photography products maker was accused of paying black employees less than white co-workers, passing them over for promotions and maintaining a racially hostile work environment.

Last October, Feldman heard arguments in favor of the deal from Kodak and lawyers for the plaintiffs. He then fielded complaints from more than a dozen former employees who said proposed payouts were inadequate, lawyer fees too high and the offer unfairly excluded workers who left Kodak before 1999.

Under the settlement, 3,008 workers get $9.65 million and their lawyers $9.7 million in fees and expenses. Adjustments to individual awards were negotiated, with a dozen workers having $75,000 awards reduced by one-third.

The balance of the settlement will go to administering the claims and supporting enhanced diversity training for supervisors that Kodak promised as part of the deal. The company will also hire an industrial psychologist and two labor statisticians to review pay and promotion policies and recommend improvements.

In a statement, Kodak said the settlement "represents a resolution of mutual interest and it absolutely does not suggest any wrongdoing" on the company's part.

"Kodak is widely recognized as a company committed to creating and maintaining an inclusive workplace in which all employees are valued, treated fairly and can contribute to their full potential," it added.

The judge noted that a Kodak damage expert, Harvard University Professor David Bloom, analyzed historical payroll data and concluded "there were no race-based disparities in promotion and compensation at Kodak between 1999 and 2005 and African-Americans were, in fact, statistically favored in promotion and base salary increases during the 1999-2005 time period."

"These risks and others make the fairness of the settlement all the more evident and weigh in favor of approving the settlement agreement," the judge said in a 59-page decision.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Area Temps Agrees to Pay $650,000 for Profiling Applicants by Race, Sex, National Origin and Age

2010-07-30T14:45:00.001-07:00

Temporary Agency Complied With Discriminatory Placement Requests,
Fired Employees Who Opposed Unlawful Practices, EEOC Alleged

CLEVELAND – Area Temps, a Northeast Ohio temporary agency, agreed to pay $650,000 to resolve a class discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced yesterday.

The EEOC charged in its lawsuit (1:07-cv-02964) that the temporary agency violated federal law by considering and assigning (or declining) job applicants by race, sex, Hispanic national origin, and age. The EEOC also alleged Area Temps unlawfully complied with discriminatory requests made by its clients based on race, sex, national origin and age, and unlawfully fired two of its employees in retaliation for their opposition to Area Temps’ discriminatory practices and for one employee’s participation in the EEOC’s investigation.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin both by employers and placement agencies, and protects employees who complain about or oppose such discrimination from retaliation. It also violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits discrimination based on age against people 40 years of age or older.

The three-year consent decree settling the suit, in addition to monetary relief, requires the company to post a notice of resolution regarding this lawsuit, visible to employees. The company must also provide a notice-of-resolution letter to all applicants, management and selecting officials and to outside clients on the obligations of the company under federal anti-discrimination laws, as well as Area Temps’ commitment to abide by such laws.

“The EEOC is pleased that Area Temps joined with the agency to negotiate a fair settlement resolving this matter,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “The equitable relief provided by the consent decree will benefit many temporary or contingent workers in the future.”

In Fiscal Year 2009, the EEOC received 93,277 charges in the agency’s private sector caseload.The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-27-10.cfm

LEGAL BRIEF: Silgan Containers Required to Pay $45,000 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination Suit

2010-07-14T09:25:00.000-07:00

The Legal Brief gives everyone an idea of some of the types of cases that EEOC litigates, as well as an idea about the specific race-based issues that other Blacks have faced and challenged in the workplace. Readers may also gain insight into the arguments presented by EEOC and the defenses offered by employers. This information may be helpful to workers, who may be considering filing a complaint or seeking legal counsel, as well as to employees who feel they are becoming embroiled in race-related issues at work.

North America’s Largest Metal Food Can Supplier Fired Man Because of Race, Federal Agency Charged

CHICAGO – Silgan Containers Manufacturing Corporation, the largest manufacturer of metal food containers in North America, will pay $45,000 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced July 2nd. The EEOC filed the lawsuit against Silgan on behalf of an African-American man who suffered alleged discriminatory treatment that resulted in his termination from Silgan’s Oconomowoc, Wis., facility.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Silgan violated federal civil rights law by intentionally delaying the hiring of Romardro Henderson and then firing him because of his race. According to the EEOC, after Henderson was finally hired, his immediate supervisor – who no longer works for Silgan – subjected Henderson to disparate and discriminatory treatment such as holding him to a higher standard on his work than non-black employees. Finally, the EEOC charged, Silgan fired Henderson for racial reasons after less than one month on the job.

Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. Silgan Containers Manufacturing Corporation, No. 09-C-782, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Callahan entered the consent decree resolving the lawsuit on July 1, 2010. In addition to providing monetary compensation to Henderson, the two-year decree resolving the lawsuit requires Silgan to notify the EEOC of any complaints of discrimination at its Oconomowoc plant for the next two years. Silgan must report to the EEOC information about its hiring practices at the Oconomowoc facility for the duration of the decree. The company must also train its managers, supervisors and human resources employees in Oconomowoc about their responsibilities under Title VII.

“This case demonstrates that racial discrimination in the American workplace is a serious and ongoing concern,” said John Rowe, EEOC district director in Chicago. “Employment discrimination has a devastating effect on workers. Fortunately, we were able to alleviate that effect in this instance because Mr. Henderson took action on his own behalf by filing a charge with the EEOC.”

EEOC Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said, “Once the EEOC filed its lawsuit and the trial team began to litigate this case, Silgan was quick to determine that accepting a meaningful settlement resolution was its best option. The consent decree entered by the court will help to ensure that all Silgan’s employees enjoy equal access to employment opportunities.”

The government’s litigation effort was led by EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory M. Gochanour and Trial Attorney Bradley S. Fiorito.

According to its website, Silgan is the largest manufacturer of metal food containers in North America, with net sales of $1.92 billion in 2009 and over 30 manufacturing facilities nationwide. Silgan is owned by Silgan Containers Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Silgan Holdings Inc. of Stamford, Conn.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-2-10a.cfm

Cullman Company To Pay $100,000 To Settle EEOC Race Discrimination Lawsuit

2010-07-08T09:54:00.000-07:00

Racially Hostile Work Environment Offends Black and White Employees at McGriff’s Truck Facility

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – McGriff Industries, Inc. and its subsidiary McGriff Transportation, Inc., which operated a truck transportation facility in Cullman, Ala., will pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on July 7th.

According to the EEOC, certain employees and managers in the Cullman facility routinely used racially derogatory comments, slurs, and insults directed at or about African-Americans. The racial misconduct escalated to threats and intimidation, including a derogatory threat to cut one of the black employees. White and black employees were offended by the racial misconduct, but were rebuffed and retaliated against -- one employee was terminated and another had his work assignments changed -- when they complained.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from employment discrimination because of their race, sex, religion or national origin and from retaliation for complaining about it. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Northeastern Division (Civil Action 5:09-CV-01952-IPJ) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

The settlement, by consent decree entered by the court on June 22, 2010, provides for a total payment of $100,000 to Todd A. Roseborough, Sr., Paul Hogan and Aaron Greenwood. The decree also includes injunctive terms applicable to each of McGriff’s offices, facilities and retail establishments in the state of Alabama. Among other requirements, McGriff must develop and implement effective anti-discrimination policies and procedures, and train its employees, supervisors and managers on the prohibitions against racial misconduct in the workplace. The company will develop a system for reporting, investigating and addressing complaints of workplace racial misconduct; hold all employees accountable for engaging in it; and hold supervisors and managers accountable for tolerating or failing to address such misconduct.

“This case is important because no employee should be subject to racism in the workplace and every employee can be offended by a racially hostile work environment,” said EEOC Birmingham District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas. “We are pleased that McGriff's senior management is now taking an active role in promoting compliance with federal civil rights law.”

EEOC Birmingham District Office Regional Attorney C. Emanuel Smith added, “The Commission will continue to litigate cases involving allegations of a racially hostile work environment. We encourage employers to be proactive and responsive to employee complaints about workplace derogatory conduct or comments.”

The EEOC’s Birmingham District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Alabama, Mississippi and Northern Florida, with Area Offices in Jackson, Miss., and Mobile, Ala.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-1-10c.cfm

John Wieland Settles EEOC Race and Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

2010-06-25T12:05:00.000-07:00

Atlanta home builder John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods Inc. will pay $378,500 and hire at least 10 blacks and women in management positions over the next six years to settle a race and sex discrimination lawsuit filed last year by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In the lawsuit, Wieland was accused of discriminating against black sales agents by purposely steering them to specific housing subdivisions based on the the race of the surrounding community.

Those black sales agents earned less than their white counterparts who were assigned to to higher-priced subdivisions, the lawsuit charged.

The $378,500 settlement will go to five black sales agents and a white human resources representative at Wieland whom the EEOC said was "forced to participate in the alleged discriminatory assignment practices."

“The job assignment issue first arose about six years ago and has been the subject of a number of lawsuits over the years," Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC's Atlanta District office, said in a statement. "This resolution provides relief to the last remaining victims of that alleged practice.”

In an e-mail statement, John Wieland said his company did not do any of those things. "Consistent with our past statements, we deny that we ever engaged in the practices alleged by the EEOC in this suit," Wieland said. "Before and since, our company has maintained a commitment to equal opportunity and will continue to do so. This settlement allows us to resolve all issues with the EEOC, avoid the cost of further litigation, and return our focus to the business of building quality homes."

As part of the settlement, the company also agreed to develop non-discriminatory hiring practices, including targeted recruitment and advertising and training in equal employment opportunity management practices.

Black Firefighters Settle Lawsuit Against Philadelphia

2010-06-20T10:00:00.000-07:00

By Jeff Shields, Inquirer Staff Writer

A group of African American firefighters and the NAACP have settled their federal lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia over allegations of racist Internet postings made by white firefighters while on duty.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe on Tuesday dismissed claims against the city at the request of Club Valiants Inc., the organization of black firefighters that has battled the Fire Department on issues of race and discrimination for 40 years.

In November, Club Valiants and Philadelphia NAACP president J. Whyatt Mondesire sued the city and Local 22 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, which represents its members. The Valiants alleged that city computers were used to post "racially harassing and discriminatory materials and comments" on the union's own website and another site used mostly by police officers, creating a hostile work environment.

As part of the settlement, the city has agreed to pay $15,000 in legal fees and "provide additional diversity training" with input from the Valiants and the NAACP. The city will also "re-post" the city's policy against using city computers for "discriminatory purposes," said Brian R. Mildenberg, attorney for the Valiants and the NAACP.

City Solicitor Shelley Smith could not be reached for comment, but a city spokesman confirmed the details of the settlement.

Kenneth Greene, former president of Club Valiants and a plaintiff in the suit, praised the city for taking "a positive step."

"It clearly says that now we can move forward . . . and alleviate any of these problems that might arise for any employee of Philadelphia in the future," Greene said in an interview.

"I am pleased that the City of Philadelphia has agreed to resolve the claims brought in this lawsuit and that the NAACP Philadelphia Branch has assisted in advancing the civil rights of African American firefighters," Mondesire said through Mildenberg.

The agreement with the city does not resolve the larger dispute between the Valiants and Local 22, whose leadership is primarily white. The Valiants' complaint said Local 22 has become "a hostile, anti-minority, and offensive union for African American Fire Fighters."

Concerned American Fire Fighters Association, or CAFFA, the local organization that claims discrimination against white firefighters in the hiring and promotion process in Philadelphia, was dropped as a defendant in April.

Settlement negotiations between the Valiants and Local 22 are ongoing, sources said.

Local 22 president Bill Gault declined to comment, as did Valiants president Eric Fleming, citing the ongoing litigation.

The postings on Local 22's website and domelights.com, a now-defunct site aimed at city police officers, included derogatory terms including "apes" and frequent mockery of what was supposed to be African American speech, according to the complaint.

Cheating Workers Out Of Rights, Benefits

2010-06-10T16:43:00.001-07:00

June 2nd, 2010

Lawmakers Go After Employers Who Misclassify Workers as Contractors

Nearly three years ago, Warren, Ohio, Local 573 Business Manager Mark Catello found out the hard way how rampant is the illegal practice of misclassifying workers as independent contractors to circumvent labor law and cheat on taxes.

The local tried organizing cable workers at Baker Communications, a subcontractor for Time Warner Cable. Organizers got the majority of the 40-person unit to sign union authorization cards, but the National Labor Relations Board killed the unionization drive after agreeing with the company that most of its employees were independent contractors, making them exempt from the right to collectively bargain. “It’s a scam,” Catello said. “All the employees had to follow the company’s manual, wear the company’s uniform with the Baker Communications logo on it and follow their work schedule.”

San Francisco labor activists protest a construction contractor found guilty of cheating its employees out of wages and benefits.

Federal and state officials are now starting to aggressively crac
k down on employers who mislabel their employees as independent contractors—an act that cheats both taxpayers and workers out of billions of dollars.

According to Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times, more than two dozen states are stepping up their enforcement of employment laws by increasing penalties for employers who misclassify workers as contractors. And Congress recently introduced tougher legislation to punish lawbreakers.

‘Widespread Practice’

The practice is extensive, says James Parrott, chief economist of the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York. He testified earlier this year before the state Senate that an estimated 10 percent of the state’s workers are misclassified as independent contractors.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that number has been estimated to be as high as 30 percent in some states. Lax enforcement of the rules has only encouraged the practice.

In 2007, the Government Accountability Office reported that 10 million workers were classified as independent contractors, an increase of more than 2 million in just six years.

Misclassification ends up costing federal and state authorities billions in lost revenue. Companies that report employees as independent contractors avoid paying Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes.

But misclassifying workers also cheats workers out of their rights and benefits. Laws regarding overtime, workers’ compensation, sick days and minimum wage don’t apply to independent contractors.

“This denies many workers their basic rights and protections and means less revenues to the Treasury and competitive advantage for employers who misclassify,” Jared Bernstein told the New York Times. Bernstein is a noted economist and aide to Vice President Joseph Biden. “The last thing you want is to give a competitive advantage to employers who are breaking the rules.”

The practice is particularly common in trucking and some sectors of the construction industry. It is also found in the telecommunications industry, particularly in satellite dish and cable installation.

And it’s not just fly-by-night operations that are guilty. Corporate giants FedEx, Target and Comcast have all been sued for misclassifying workers.

Counting their workers as contractors has also proven to be an easy way for employers to prevent unionization.

‘Keeps Them From Joining a Union’

For Eighth District Organizer Bob Brock, a crackdown on industry violators is long overdue.

Brock has been trying to organize workers who install home satellite dishes for more than a year. Many of these workers—located mostly in Idaho, Montana and Colorado—endure long hours, low pay, draconian work rules and unsafe working conditions. But according to their employers—including Direct TV and Star West Satellite—they are their own bosses.

“Most of these (satellite) companies operate a whole separate wing, which they staff with what they call independent contractors,” Brock said. “But they have to follow the companies’ regulations, their work hours and use their equipment. What kind of boss is that?”

Brock says that the IBEW has been successful in getting many of these workers to talk with organizers, but until their job status is changed, they can’t legally form a union.

He says he has seen workplaces where two different workers are doing the exact same job, but one is labeled an employee while the other is an independent contractor. “It’s a selective way for the company to get out of paying benefits and taxes and to keep them from joining a union.”

Educating Workers on Their Rights

But the IBEW hasn’t given up on organizing the satellite sector. The Eighth District has started an organization—Satellite Techs Allied for a New Direction—which brings together satellite workers to improve their working conditions. Organizers help workers document what’s going on in their workplace so they have evidence to back up their claims that they are full-time employees.

STAND also helps misclassified workers with tax advice and how to avoid being preyed on by unscrupulous insurance agents who try to sell them overpriced liability policies. It’s a long-term strategy, Brock says, but the campaign is starting to pick up steam. “The word is spreading throughout the industry. A lot of them don’t know about their rights and they are hungry to find out.”

The campaign is now moving into lobbying mode, with organizers talking to state leaders about rampant abuses in the satellite installation industry. “This is a good time, because with the budget shortfalls, politicians are more eager to crack down on tax cheats,” Brock said.

Rampant Abuse

Broadcasting is another industry where the practice has become widespread. “Many broadcast technicians will work for one of the big networks, be considered an employee, but then go work for another network, do the exact same job, and all of a sudden they become contractors,” said Broadcasting Department Director Ro Wratschko.

Many smaller production companies are also notorious for misclassifying employees to give them unfair advantage over local signatory companies. “They are bidding for the same work as our union shops but they are illegally getting out of paying the same taxes we do, so they have a leg up,” he said.

While not as rampant in the electrical construction industry as it is in other trades, many inside locals have confronted nonunion contractors trying to pass off their employees as contractors. Last fall, Dublin, Calif., Local 595 helped bring to light one Bay Area contractor who cost the state and her employees millions of dollars by illegally misclassifying them.

“It’s the primary means for nonunion contractors to get out of their responsibilities to their employees and try to cut into our market share,” said Kirk Groenendaal, Special Assistant to the International President for Membership Development.

Federal prosecution of companies that misclassify their workers as contractors was nonexistent under the Bush administration, says Political and Legislative Department International Representative Dan Gardner, but the tide is turning.

President Obama has promised to hire an additional 100 investigators to look at companies accused of misclassifying workers and the Internal Revenue Service announced in February that it was launching a three-year nationwide investigation of the practice.

On Capitol Hill, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (D) has introduced the Taxpayer Responsibility, Accountability, and Consistency Act of 2009—with Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) sponsoring a House version—which beefs up enforcement of worker classification regulations and closes tax loopholes used by unscrupulous employers.

In April, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) introduced a similar bill—the Employee Misclassification Act—that focuses on tougher enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Department of Labor also recently announced tougher regulations of worker classification regulations, calling on employers to disclose to their employees their work status.

State authorities are also intensifying their crackdown. In Iowa, a six-month investigation by the labor department recently found more than 100 companies guilty of misclassifying employees, while in California, Attorney General Jerry Brown is aggressively going after lawbreakers, recently filing a $4.3 million lawsuit against a construction company with several public works contracts that he says cheated workers out of wages.

In Nebraska, a bill is under serious consideration that would target trucking and construction companies that abuse the independent contractor label.

Gardner said that the IBEW is working closely with NECA contractors and other businesses to push Congress to endorse Sens. Kerry’s and Brown’s legislation to crack down on lawbreakers. “It’s wrong for workers, wrong for taxpayers and wrong for the businesses that play by the rules and follow the law.”

This post originally appeared in IBEW.org on June 2, 2010. Reprinted with permission.

National Denture Provider to Pay $150,000 to Settle EEOC Sex and Race Harassment Suit

2010-06-08T13:41:00.000-07:00

BOSTON – Affordable Care, Inc., a national denture provider, will pay $150,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sex and race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on June 2nd. The lawsuit, filed in March 2009 in federal court in Springfield, Mass., charged that Affordable Care violated federal law when its affiliated dentist, Nelson Wood, sexually and racially harassed two female employees.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Kinston, N.C.-based Affordable Care and Nelson Wood, operating as Nelson Wood, DMD, PC, created a sexually and racially hostile work environment for Ariede Mills, who is African American, and Laura Carl, who is white, at its office in West Springfield. The lawsuit alleged that, among other things, Wood referred to women as “whining b-----s,” propositioned Mills for sex, spanked Carl repeatedly on the buttocks, made insulting remarks about blacks, and claimed that he had a relative who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Both Mills and Carl complained repeatedly about Wood to Affordable Care, which is headquartered in North Carolina, but the company failed to stop the harassment. The EEOC also charged that Mills was fired in retaliation for her complaints, and that Carl was forced to quit because of the offensive conduct.

The settlement provides $75,000 each to Mills and Carl. In addition to the monetary payments, the consent decree resolving the litigation (Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-10399), approved by Judge Michael Ponsor today, enjoins Affordable Care and Wood from further discriminating on the basis of sex and race; creates an independent EEO coordinator to receive and investigate complaints of discrimination and retaliation at Affordable Care’s dental practices; mandates training on the requirements of anti-discrimination laws; and requires the issuance of a new anti-discrimination policy and the posting of a notice regarding the settlement.

Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., director of the EEOC’s New York District Office, which has jurisdiction over Massachusetts, said, “This case is a reminder that the EEOC will not allow a company like Affordable Care to escape liability for the actions of its affiliated entities when it maintains control over those operations.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Markus L. Penzel in Boston added, “The EEOC is pleased that Affordable Care worked cooperatively with us to resolve this case with minimal litigation. We believe that the relief provided in the consent decree will help prevent what happened to Ms. Mills and Ms. Carl from happening to others in the future.”

On its web site, Affordable Care describes itself as a dental services organization currently supporting over 150 affiliated practices providing Affordable Dentures® in more than 37 states.

The EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Further information about EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-2-10.cfm

Morley Missouri Construction Company Settles Racial Harassment and Retaliation Suit with EEOC

2010-06-05T12:36:00.001-07:00

Dollins Construction Punished Black Workers for Complaining About Noose Display, Racist Comments, Federal Agency Charged

ST. LOUIS – Dollins Construction Company of Morley, Mo., has settled a race harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on May 24th. The EEOC’s suit, which was filed last September, charged that Dollins, an unincorporated business, violated federal law by racially harassing three African American construction workers and then taking reprisals against them when one complained.

In its lawsuit (Case No. 1:09-cv-00137), the EEOC alleged that three black construction workers were subjected to unlawful racial harassment at a work site in Corydon, Ind., in the fall of 2006, which included the use of racially charged comments and the display of a noose. The suit said that after one of the victims complained about the conduct to the owner of the business in Scott County, Mo., they were not sent out on any further jobs.

Racial harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, provides for the payment of $15,000 for lost wages and compensatory damages, implementation of an effective anti-discrimination policy, training for all management employees and reporting and monitoring requirements.

“No matter how small an employer may be or how limited its resources, the EEOC will use the full measure of the law to eradicate racist displays from any place of employment,” said EEOC District Director James R. Neely, Jr.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Discrimination Against Black, Female Caregivers

2010-05-22T12:48:00.001-07:00

According to the EEOC, caregiving responsibilities disproportionately affect working women and their effects may be even more pronounced among some women of color, particularly African American women, who have a long history of working outside the home.

African American mothers with young children are more likely to be employed than other women raising young children, and both African American and Hispanic women are more likely to be raising children in a single-parent household than are White or Asian American women. Women of color also may devote more time to caring for extended family members, including both grandchildren and elderly relatives, than do their White counterparts.

Sure, discrimination against caregivers is a problem that can impact anyone in the workplace, male or female. But, it represents a particular issue for Black, female caregivers. In fact, caregiver discrimination against a Black worker (or Hispanic, etc.) might be compounded by other forms of discrimination such as race, color, gender, etc.

For instance, A Black, female worker, who is a single parent/caregiver may be discriminated against because of stereotypes about working mothers or single parents. AND, she may also be discriminated against because her supervisor has racist beliefs and/or stereotypes about Blacks and women.

Women of color also may be subjected to intersectional discrimination that is specifically directed toward women of a particular race or ethnicity, rather than toward all women, resulting, for example, in less favorable treatment of an African American working mother than her White counterpart.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination not just because of one protected trait (e.g., race), but also because of the intersection of two or more protected bases (e.g., race and sex). For example, Title VII prohibits discrimination against African American women even if the employer does not discriminate against White women or African American men. The law also prohibits individuals from being subjected to discrimination because of the intersection of their race and a trait covered by another EEO statute – e.g., race and disability, or race and age.

If you suspect that you are the victim of caregiver discrimination and/or intersectional discrimination (e.g., a Black, female caregiver), you should report your suspicions to someone in authority at your organization or to Human Resources. Or, you can file a complaint with an outside agency like EEOC or the Office of Human Rights or you can seek the counsel of an attorney.

Sources: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html#discrwomen and http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html#IVC

EEOC Obtains $122,500 from Houston Construction Company for Religious, Race and National Origin Discrimination

2010-05-22T12:47:00.001-07:00

Pace Services Treated Islamic, Black and Hispanic Employees Unfairly, Federal Agency Charged

HOUSTON – A Houston-area construction company will pay $122,500 and provide additional remedial relief to resolve a discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on April 22nd. The EEOC had charged that Pace Services, L.P. discriminated against Mohammad Kaleemuddin because he is of the Islamic faith and of East Indian descent, and against 13 other employees because they are black or Hispanic.

The EEOC’s lawsuit (Civil Action No. 4:08cv2886, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division) asserted that a Pace supervisor referred to Kaleemuddin as “terrorist,” “Taliban,” “Osama” and “Al-Qaeda.” According to the EEOC, despite Kaleemuddin’s complaints, Pace never took action to stop the harassment, which continued up to the day when the supervisor fired him. The EEOC further claimed that the same supervisor, as well as others in Pace management, regularly referred to African Americans as “n----s” and to Hispanics as “f-----g Mexicans.”

Under the terms of the consent decree settling the suit, signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen William Smith, Pace Services will pay $61,250 in relief to compensate Kaleemuddin. An additional $61,250 will be distributed among the other non-Anglo employees who were also harassed. In addition to the monetary payments, the decree directs that Pace’s owner shall provide a signed letter of apology to Kaleemuddin, that the manager alleged to have made many of the racist remarks be prohibited from ever working again for Pace, and that Pace provide employee training designed to prevent future discrimination and harassment on the job.

EEOC Houston Regional Attorney Jim Sacher said, “Employees have an absolute right to be free from discriminatory harassment in the workplace. The EEOC will vigorously challenge violations of this statutory right.”

Kaleemuddin added, “I would like to thank all the guys I used to work with at Pace for standing up for the truth.”

The EEOC enforces the federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Additional information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov.

Anyone who believes he or she has been subjected to a discriminatory employment practice is encouraged to contact the EEOC’s Houston District Office located in downtown Houston at 1919 Smith Street, in the Mickey Leland Federal Building.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-22-10.cfm

Poplar Springs Refused to Consider Applicant Because of Age and Race, Federal Agency Charged

2010-05-11T10:01:00.000-07:00

GULFPORT, Miss. -- Poplar Springs Nursing Center, LLC, a Meridian, Miss., nursing home, will pay $40,000 and furnish other relief to settle an age and race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on May 3rd.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Poplar Springs discriminated against Gloria Carey, a 53-year-old black female, by denying her a social worker position because of her age and her race. The EEOC alleged that despite Carey’s 27-plus years of experience as a social worker, Poplar Springs refused to consider her for the position. Instead, the EEOC said, a less qualified 34-year-old white female was the only candidate interviewed and then hired.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects people aged 40 and older from employment discrimination. Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division (Civil Action No. 4:08-cv-112-TSL-LCA) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

The settlement, by consent decree, dated April 29, 2010, provides for a payment of $40,000 in compensatory damages to Carey. The decree also requires Poplar Springs to provide specific training to its administrator, managers and supervisors, with particular emphasis on age and race discrimination, and to submit reports to the EEOC detailing its compliance with the decree. The settlement also requires Poplar Springs to provide training to employees on age and race discrimination at its in-service training sessions that occur every other month.

“Racial and age stereotyping has no place in hiring decisions; it is illegal, demoralizing, and deprives the workplace of invaluable knowledge, experience and creativity,” said EEOC District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas. “The EEOC will vigorously prosecute employers who engage in this type of conduct.”

EEOC Birmingham District Office Regional Attorney C. Emanuel Smith said, “We are pleased that Poplar Springs has agreed to resolve this litigation and committed to take positive steps to improve its application process. Assumptions about an applicant’s ability should never be grounded in age or race bias.”

The EEOC’s Birmingham District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Alabama, Mississippi and Northern Florida, with Area Offices in Jackson, Miss., and Mobile, Ala.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Truck Driver Wins Gender Discrimination Case In Fourth Circuit

2010-04-29T14:57:00.000-07:00

April 29th, 2010 | Ellen Simon

Court Elaborates On Types Of Evidence For Proof Of Discrimination
The recent case of Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight is hands down one of the best decisions I have come across in a long time.

It addresses gender discrimination, sex stereotyping, and a corporate culture of discrimination in a way few cases have. It’s simply a great case for employees – particularly for victims of sex discrimination.

What Happened In The Case

Merritt worked as a line haul truck drive for Old Dominion, a nationwide trucking company. As a line haul driver, Merritt made lengthy cross-country trips. She performed her duties without incident or complaint. At some point, Merritt became interested in becoming a pickup and delivery driver so she could work more regular hours and spend nights and weekends at home.

To prove that she could do the job, she filled in numerous times as a pickup and delivery driver, and once again performed the duties without incident or complaint.

When a permanent pickup and delivery position became available at Old Dominion’s Lynchburg Virginia terminal, Merritt talked to Bobby Howard, the terminal manager about it. Howard told her that he lacked the authority to fill the position and proceeded to hire a less experienced man for the job.

The following year another permanent pickup and delivery position became available in Lynchburg and Merritt again expressed an interest in the position to Howard. Once again, Merritt was passed over in favor of a less experienced male.

When Merritt asked why she was not hired, Howard told her that:

•it was decided and they could not let a woman have that position.
•the company did not really have women drivers in the city (as pick up and deliver drivers)

On another occasion he told her:

•the Regional VP was worried about hiring a female pickup and deliver driver because women were more injury prone and he was aftaid a female would get hurt
•the VP didn’t think a girl should have that position

Finally, a year later, Old Dominion hired Merritt to fill a permanent Pickup and Delivery position in Lynchburg. Merritt was placed on a ninety-day probationary and told she could lose her job if any performance problems arose. Male drivers were not subject to similar probationary terms.

For the next two years, Merritt performed her Pickup and Delivery duties without a problem. Unfortunately, she then suffered an ankle injury at work which was diagnosed as plantar fascititis with a superimposed strain. She was put on light duty work by her doctor at first, but a couple of months later, he gave her a clean bill of health.

When she attempted to return to her regular duties, Brian Stoddard, Vice President of Safety and Personnel, required Merritt to take a physical ability test (“PAT”), a full-body test divided into six components that evaluates the test taker’s general strength, agility, and cardiovascular endurance. The test was graded on a pass/fail basis. The PAT was created for Old Dominion to be used in the hiring process and had been used to evaluate potential hires, but only on a variable basis.

Merritt struggled with several segments of the test and received a failing grade. According to Merritt, the tasks she had problems with had nothing to do with her ankle. In one portion of the test, for example, Merritt was unable to place a box of weight on an overhead shelf simply because she was too short.

After receiving the results of Merritt’s PAT, Stoddard terminated Merritt’s employment. Merritt filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and then filed a lawsuit in federal court in Western District of Virginia claiming that Old Dominion terminated her because of her gender in violation of Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The district court granted judgment against Merritt because it found that Old Dominion produced a legitimate reason for firing Merritt (she failed the PAT) and because she had not produced any evidence that Stoddard (the decision maker) harbored any “discriminatory animus” towards Merritt. Merritt appealed.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses

Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against an individual on the basis of sex. The most prevalent method of establishing discrimination is under the burden-shifting framework set forth in the Supreme Court case of McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green which goes like this:

•The plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of discrimination
•The burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for its allegedly discriminatory action
•If the employer carries this burden, the plaintiff then has an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the neutral reason offered by the employer was not a true reason but a pretext for discrimination.

Ultimately, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that he or she was a victim of intentional discrimination.

In this case, Old Dominion put forth its legitimate non discriminatory justification for discharging Merritt – her failure to pass the PAT. That proved, according to Old Dominion, that Merritt did not have the “requisite physical strength to safely perform the job duties.”

Merritt insisted that this rationale was a pretext for discrimination.

The Court of Appeals agreed with Merritt and found that the “record as a whole supports Merritt’s claim that a jury could find that discrimination on the basis of gender was afoot.”

According to the Court, Merritt produced plenty of evidence that Old Dominion’s explanation for her discharge was “unworthy of credence.” For example, Merritt’s doctor stated that there was nothing about Merritt’s medical condition which would have prevented her from performing her job duties as a Pickup and Delivery driver. As the Court pointed out:

Old Dominion terminated a good employee who, pre-injury, performed her job ably and without complaint and who, post-injury was both willing and able to report to this same job for work. These facts, if believed, would allow a jury to think Old Dominion was simply looking for a reason to get rid of Merritt.

In addition, the Court found that Merritt produced evidence of discriminatory intent. For one:

•Injured male employees did not have to take the PAT test
•Merritt produced evidence that the policy requiring all injured employees to take the PAT test did not exist

As the Court stated:

While a neutral policy serving Old Dominion’s legitimate business interests in public and employee safety could certainly be put in place, a trier of fact could reasonably find that Old Dominion’s selective application and ever-changing rationales for the PAT were designed to conceal intent to reserve the plum Pickup and Delivery positions for male drivers.

In addition, the district court ignored evidence of the corporate culture of discrimination produced by Merritt. The Court stated:

It is not unfair to observe that the corporate culture evinced a very specific yet pervasive aversion to the idea of a female Pickup and Delivery Drivers. Old Dominion employees, of all ranks, seemed to share a view that women were unfit for that position. …..

While the views of others are no proof of the views of Stoddard, at some point the corporate environment in which he worked places Stoddard’s own selective use of the PAT in Merritt’s case in a less neutral context.

In Lattieri v. Equant, ….[w]e deemed the plaintiff’s ‘powerful evidence showing a discriminatory attitude at her company of employment toward female managers’ sufficient to ‘allow a trier of fact to conclude that these discriminatory attitudes led to plaintiff’s ultimate termination.’ Likewise here.

The sum, the Court said:

Old Dominion fired an employee who was, according to the district court, able to do her job without assistance and in a satisfactory manner’ due to a treatable ankle injury, while hiding behind the results of a selectively administered physical fitness test that test that did not even purport to test the injury, and while dubiously claiming that its decision was compelled by a late-blooming policy, all in the context of, to put it mildly, a sexually stereotype work environment.

In this case, it not any single piece of evidence but rather the evidence taken in its entirety that leads us to believe Merritt deserves a trial….

Based on all of the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Old Dominion and remand for trial on Merritt’s Title VII claim.

Take Away

This case helps women in circumstances similar to Merritt’s – firefighters, police officers, constructions workers, etc. — those in male dominated physical professions who still face widespread discrimination because they are simply not wanted.

Just this past fall, I counseled a female firefighter who was repeatedly seeking a promotion, and forced to take numerous tests that were not required of her male counterparts. It’s not an unusual scenario though this type of discrimination is precisely what Title VII is aimed to prevent. The Merritt case, no doubt, should help women fight for equality in the workplace.

In a broad sense, this case hits so many of the issues that come up in discrimination cases all of the time – “stray remarks,” “post- hoc justifications,” “shifting explanations,” the parsing of evidence by district court judges – to name a few, and frames them in a way that will be extremely helpful to employees and their lawyers in discrimination litigation in the future.

This post originally appeared in Employee Rights Post on April 28, 2010. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Ellen Simon: is recognized as one of the leading employment and civil rights lawyers in the United States.She offers legal advice to individuals on employment rights, age/gender/race and disability discrimination, retaliation and sexual harassment. With a unique grasp of the issues, Ellen’s a sought-after legal analyst who discusses high-profile civil cases, employment discrimination and woman’s issues. Her blog, Employee Rights Post has dedicated readers who turn to Ellen for her advice and opinion. For more information go to www.ellensimon.net.

Cannon and Wendt to Pay $100,000 to Settle EEOC National Origin Discrimination and Retaliation Suit

2010-04-24T12:08:00.000-07:00

PHOENIX -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced, on April 13th, that it has settled a national origin discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Cannon & Wendt Electric Co., Inc., one of the oldest and largest electrical contractors operating in Phoenix, Ariz., for $100,000 for Victor Cortez and a comprehensive consent decree, signed by Federal Judge Earl H. Carroll.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix, accusing Cannon & Wendt Electric Co., Inc. of discriminating against Victor Cortez when it subjected him to racist statements and then retaliated against him by terminating him after he complained about the unlawful discrimination.

According to the EEOC’s suit, EEOC v. Cannon & Wendt Electric, Co., Inc., CV-07-1710 PHX/EHC, employee Victor Cortez was unlawfully harassed because of his national origin by his immediate supervisor, Mark Ghose. The harassment included comments by Ghose, such as “I hate all Mexicans,” “they are worthless,” and “I hate Mexican music.” It was also alleged that Ghose openly stated his belief that Cortez was “useless” and he wanted to “get rid of him.” The EEOC also alleged that when Cortez complained to Cannon & Wendt’s then owner, Albert Wendt, Wendt failed to take any action except to ask “so, what do you want me to do about it?” The national origin harassment continued after Cortez’s complaints. Soon after he complained about the unlawful discrimination, Cannon & Wendt fired Cortez.

The EEOC obtained $100,000 for Cortez as damages for lost wages and benefits as well as compensation for the emotional distress. By entering into the consent decree, Cannon & Wendt agreed also to give Cortez an apology; subject Ghose to certain training; an injunction against national origin harassment and retaliation; reporting to the EEOC; the posting and distribution of a notice; change its anti-discrimination policies; and conduct extensive training for its supervisory and managerial workforce over the next three years.

Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the Phoenix District Office, said, “Each of the statutes that the EEOC enforces contain a specific prohibition against retaliating against any employee or applicant who opposes discrimination internally or files a charge of discrimination with a state or federal agency. Because there is a significant imbalance of power between employee and employer, this office will continue to vigorously enforce the statutes’ anti-retaliation provisions through its investigations and litigation. In Victor Cortez’s case, we are satisfied that he has been compensated for the egregious manner in which he was unlawfully treated.”

Janet Elizondo, acting director for the Phoenix District Office, said, “Title VII provides that employees, including Victor Cortez, are entitled to work and keep their dignity. No employee should ever have to sacrifice his or her identity in order to keep a job. This employer not only ignored Mr. Cortez’s rights to be free from discrimination, but also fired him because he complained about the unlawful discrimination. This is a particularly troubling case because the EEOC sued this particular employer for religious discrimination a few years ago. After being sued, most employers take their EEO obligations under the law seriously. It is troubling to the EEOC to see a repeat offender.”

EEOC Trial Attorney Veronica Molina said, “Cannon & Wendt’s treatment of Mr. Cortez was outrageous. If the company had not settled, this would have been a very good case for a punitive damages request from a jury.”

Cortez said, “I am very thankful to the EEOC for fighting for me. What happened to me was wrong. No one should have to experience what I did in order to support my family.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-13-10.cfm

Feds slam Texas factory over discrimination claims

2010-04-18T12:21:00.000-07:00

By the CNN Wire, April 15, 2010

Dallas, Texas (CNN) -- African-American workers at a Texas pipe factory endured a string of racial slurs and harassment and were targeted by their managers when they complained, federal investigators have determined.

Black employees at the Turner Industries plant in Paris, Texas, regularly "were subjected to unwelcome racial slurs, comments and intimidation, racial graffiti, nooses in the workplace and other symbols of discrimination," the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported.

Black workers also were denied promotions and disciplined more harshly than whites, the agency concluded in a three-page letter in late March. Managers at the plant not only were aware of a "hostile environment," they also targeted workers who complained and disciplined white employees who opposed the harassment, the EEOC found.

The EEOC has called on Turner Industries, based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to join talks aimed at producing a "just resolution" to the problems. The company said its plant "is free from any form of discrimination, retaliation, or any other workplace conduct that violates the law."

"We are disappointed that the EEOC has issued this determination and strongly disagree with the EEOC's findings," Michael Phelps, Turner Industries' vice president for human resources, said in a written statement.

Lawyers for the seven Turner employees who went to the EEOC displayed photographs of the slurs, of hanging nooses and threatening notes left for employees at the Paris plant during a news conference Wednesday. One of those employees, Dontrail Mathis, told reporters that he was frequently called racially inflammatory names and that most African-American employees were relegated to the paint shop.

Mathis, a painter's helper, said one co-worker who found out he was married to a white woman told him, "In the Bible, it says that white women shouldn't mix with monkeys." When he called Turner's corporate office to complain about that incident, he heard nothing back, Mathis said.

"I tried to back away from it. It kept going and going and coming and coming," he said.

Jason Milligan, a former night foreman at the plant, said his bosses "more or less wanted me to do their dirty work."

"I watched certain people more than I did the others, to see if I could get anything on them that could be used against them," he said. But he said he was fired after he refused to sign an affidavit accusing a Turner employee of theft -- a man he believed had been "set up."

"I'm not going to lie for anyone," Milligan said. "He was a man just like me. He has a family to take care of. I'm not going to do it. And from then on, that was my down-slide."

Milligan worked at the plant for nine months before he was fired. Company officials told him he was sacked for failing a drug test, he said. But a lawyer for the employees, Jay Ellwanger, said Milligan warned testers that he was taking a diet medication that could show up as a stimulant.

Milligan said managers were told to document and clean off any racist graffiti immediately, but he said one such case he handled in his nine months at the plant was "swept under the rug" when the person behind it turned out to be a relative of another manager.

In the year since workers in the Paris plant went to the EEOC, similar complaints have emerged at other Turner factories in Texas, Ellwanger said.

Paris is about 110 miles northeast of Dallas. The Rev. Peter Johnson, a state civil rights leader, said the problems reported at the Turner plant reflect a "culture of discrimination" that lingers in East Texas.

"East Texas is Mississippi 50 years ago. This case will begin to help us unravel the history of discrimination and bigotry throughout East Texas," he said.

Professional Building Systems Of North Carolina To Pay $118,000 To Settle Race Harassment Case

2010-04-14T17:17:00.001-07:00

Custom Homes Manufacturer Subjected African American Employees to Racial Harassment, EEOC Charged

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Professional Building Systems of North Carolina, LLC, of Mt. Gilead, N.C., will pay $118,000to six African American employees who filed charges of racial harassment with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and six more African Americans who were also subjected to racial harassment, the agency announced today.

Additionally, the company agreed to significant non-monetary relief to settle the lawsuit brought by the EEOC.

The EEOC brought the lawsuit against Professional Building Systems after it had identified at least 12 black employees who had been subjected to racial harassment there. According to the EEOC’s complaint, at various times between mid-2005 and 2008, black employees were subjected to racial harassment that involved the creation and display of nooses; references to black employees as “boy” and by the "N-word”; and racially offensive pictures such as a picture that depicted the Ku Klux Klan looking down a well at a black man. In its complaint, the EEOC alleged that the managers of Professional Building Systems not only knew about the harassment and took no action to stop or prevent it, but also that a manager was one of the perpetrators of the harassment.

Racial harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (EEOC v. Professional Building Systems of North Carolina, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00617), after attempting to reach a voluntary settle¬ment with Professional Building Systems. Thereafter, six of the harassment victims intervened in the EEOC’s lawsuit via private counsel.
“Make no mistake: Almost fifty years after the passage of landmark civil rights laws, nooses and racial epithets like the “N-word” are still being used to ridicule and intimidate in the work¬place,” said Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC will forcefully fight this reprehensible and racist conduct wherever we find it, and we’ll insist on securing substantial relief for victims, as we did in this case.”

In addition to monetary damages, the consent decree resolving the case provides for injunctive relief to prevent Professional Building Systems from maintaining a racially hostile work environment or engaging in retaliation under Title VII. The decree also requires the company to post its policy against racial harassment; distribute the policy to employees; provide annual, company-wide training on racial harassment; eliminate all existing nooses or racial epithets, if any, from its facility; and report future verbal or written complaints of racial harassment.

“Nooses are symbols of hate, prejudice, and discrimination, which should not and will not be tolerated in the workplace,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Charlotte District. “It is especially inexcusable when managers perpetrate racial harassment against their sub¬ordinates or know about racial harassment and fail to address it. EEOC will continue its efforts to eliminate racial harassment in the workplace on behalf of harassment victims.”

Tina Burnside, supervisory trial attorney in the EEOC’s Charlotte District, added, “The EEOC is pleased that the consent decree includes injunctive measures designed to ensure that black employ¬ees are no longer subjected to racial harassment and can work in an environment free of nooses and racial graffiti.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov.

City Ordered to Pay Black Police, Fire Applicants

2010-04-05T12:41:00.000-07:00

Larger type Smaller type
By Lucas Sullivan, Staff Writer

Updated 12:29 AM Saturday, April 3, 2010
DAYTON — The U.S. Department of Justice has directed the city to pay 35 black applicants who tested to become police officers or firefighters nearly $400,000.

Each of the applicants will get $10,651 after the justice department determined the city’s civil service exam and job requirements unfairly discriminated against minorities, according to a letter from its Civil Rights Division.

Another man who applied to be a firefighter, passed the civil service test and was not hired will receive $20,513.

The payouts stem from a consent decree between city officials and the justice department. The decree calls for the city to pay up to $450,000 and revamp its civil service exam.

The city cannot hire any firefighters or police officers until it submits a new civil service test to the justice department for approval. A new test is still being drawn up.

The questions on the exam are supposed to focus on basic grammar skills, spelling, math, and common scenarios encountered by police officers and firefighters. The test is intended for applicants with a high school education or GED, Civil Service Board Chief Examiner Giselle Johnson said.

The consent decree directs the city to first consider hiring 19 priority candidates who successfully complete all requirements to become a police officer or firefighter; which include passing the revamped civil service test and necessary training.

The city is obligated to hire no more than five police officers and nine firefighters from the priority hire list, the decree states.

Upon completing probation, those hired will then be given retroactive seniority pay and benefits, the decree states. That means the priority hires would bypass other officers on the force in seniority, salary and benefits. They, however, cannot bypass existing officers in rank, the decree states.

“The goal is to get these departments to be reflective of the makeup of the population,” Dayton Commissioner Dean Lovelace said. “The hurdle has been some of these old procedures. I think the new tests will allow us to level the ground a little bit.”

Police and fire union officials maintain the civil service test did not prevent more minorities from joining the city’s safety forces. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 44 President Randy Beane said not enough minority applicants show up to take the test.

He said he doesn’t understand why those who “weren’t even close” to passing the old civil service test are being rewarded and/or given priority hire status.

Contact this reporter at  (937) 225-2494 or lsullivan @DaytonDailyNews.com.

SPLC Suit Wins $2.75 Million Settlement for Exploited Workers

2010-02-23T15:01:00.001-08:00

02/12/2010
COLUMBIA, Tenn. – In one of the largest settlements of its kind, an Arkansas forestry company has agreed to pay $2.75 million to settle the legal claims of foreign guestworkers who say they were cheated out of the wages they earned planting trees for the company.

Superior Forestry Service Inc.’s agreement to pay more than 2,200 guestworkers makes this one of the largest settlements ever reached under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the workers by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Farmworker Justice, the Legal Aid Justice Center and attorneys from two Chicago-based private law firms: Willenson Law, LLC and Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & Dym. Superior Forestry is one of the largest forestry contractors in the United States.

The settlement received preliminary approval Thursday from U.S. District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. It is subject to final approval following a fairness hearing in March.

Throughout the South, men imported from foreign countries are doing backbreaking forestry work under the federal government's "guestworker" program. Denied the protection of the marketplace, these foreign workers are modern-day indentured servants, bound to unscrupulous labor contractors who routinely exploit them.

“Guestworkers are too often seen as disposable workers who can be cheated and exploited,” said Jim Knoepp, an attorney with the SPLC’s Immigrant Justice Project. “This settlement sends a powerful message that these workers have rights and that their employers will be held accountable.”

The company also agreed to abide by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act to ensure workers are not cheated out of future wages. Superior’s guestworkers were recruited from Mexico and Central America to plant pine seedlings throughout the Southeastern United States. They entered the country legally under the H-2B guestworker visa program.

Once finalized, the settlement will end the lawsuit, which was filed in January 2006. During the lawsuit, Superior was held in contempt of court three times. The contractor was most recently held in contempt in July after a company labor recruiter showed up at a meeting in Mexico between plaintiff lawyers and workers interested in the lawsuit – violating a court order and intimidating workers who might join the lawsuit.

That incident led the court to punish Superior by barring it from presenting evidence to dispute the workers’ claims for damages.

The SPLC’s 2007 report Close to Slavery documents rampant wage violations, recruitment abuses, seizure of identity documents and squalid living conditions in the H-2B program. Guestworkers, whose visas do not allow them to change jobs, typically have little recourse if they are exploited.

Supreme Court to consider another case on racial bias in hiring

2010-02-23T14:56:00.000-08:00

Chicago firefighters say they were illegally discriminated against through test scores. A lawyer calls it the flip side to last year's case involving white firefighters in New Haven, Conn.

By David G. Savage
February 20, 2010

Reporting from Washington - The controversy over racial bias, testing and firefighters that blew up at both the Supreme Court and the Senate last year returns Monday, this time as the justices decide whether blacks who were not hired in Chicago because of their test scores are due damages for years of lost wages.

The potentially $100-million civil rights case comes before a high court that has already shown its skepticism toward such claims.

Last year, the justices ruled for white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were victims of illegal racial discrimination when the city threw out the results of a promotion test. The whites had earned high scores and would have gotten nearly all the promotions. City officials dropped the test results because they feared being sued by blacks who were denied promotions.

By contrast, the city of Chicago was sued for illegal discrimination by more than 6,000 African Americans who earned "qualified" scores on an entry-level test given by the Fire Department, but who lost out to mostly white applicants who had higher, "well qualified" scores.

"This case is the flip side of Ricci," said Benna Solomon, deputy corporation counsel for Chicago, referring to the New Haven case. "It illustrates the tension that public employers face."

The outcome of the Chicago case may well turn on whether the lawyers for the black applicants waited a few months too long to file their suit. It's likely to have a national impact, however, because most state and city agencies are required by law to use competitive tests for hiring.

It began in 1995 when 26,000 applicants jammed into Chicago's United Center sports arena to take an entry-level, paper-and-pencil test for jobs in the Fire Department. Only those who scored 89 or above were considered "well qualified" for the jobs, the city said in January 1996. Assuming they passed a physical and medical test, these top scorers stood a good chance of being hired over the next eight years.

About 76% of those in the "well qualified" group were white -- 11.5% were black even though there were only slightly more whites than blacks taking the test. Mayor Richard M. Daley called the results "disappointing." Those who scored between 65 and 88 were classified as "qualified" but were told they were unlikely to be hired.

In 1997 a group of "qualified" blacks sued, alleging racial discrimination. They relied on a part of the Civil Rights Act that says job standards, including tests, are illegal if they unfairly screen out applicants because of their race or gender.

Employers can defend themselves only if they can prove the tests were job-related and were a "business necessity." In last year's ruling, the Supreme Court's conservative bloc questioned these bias claims that rely on racial statistics.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said the suits can "amount to a sort of racial preference" if employers are forced to hire based on race rather than on "equal opportunity regardless of race." The New Haven decision became the central controversy of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings in the Senate because as a lower court judge, she had ruled against the white firefighters.

Prior to the Supreme Court's opinion, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruled for the black applicants in Chicago. She said the city had failed to prove that those who scored at least 89 were more qualified than those whose scores were in the 70s or lower 80s. The "cutoff score of 89 is statistically meaningless," she said.

The city's lawyers appealed, but only to argue that the black applicants waited too long to sue. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and threw out the blacks' suit in 2008, ruling that they had missed the 300-day deadline for filing claims of job discrimination. The plaintiffs sued more than a year after the results were announced.

Last year, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund appealed to the Supreme Court on behalf of the black applicants, and it won the support of the Obama administration.

Shortly after ruling for white firefighters in New Haven, the high court voted to hear the case of the black applicants from Chicago.

The justices could rule narrowly on the deadlines, or more broadly on bias claims based on test scores.

The city also took a lesson from the legal fight. When it announced a new test for firefighters in 2006, it adopted a pass-fail approach. All those who had a passing score could become firefighters.

david.savage@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

NAACP Seeks Dept. Probe for Bias Against Black Police Officers

2010-01-26T08:36:00.000-08:00

Officer alleging discrimination talks through attorney

The Montgomery and Prince George's County chapters of the NAACP ask the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation into the Hyattsville Police Department, alleging that the police agency discriminated against six African American officers. Officer Barbara Smith would not speak but decides to stand before cameras so that people could attach a face to the complaint, her attorney says.

The Montgomery and Prince George's chapters of the NAACP have asked the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation into the Hyattsville police Department, alleging it discriminated against six African American officers.

June White Dillard, president of the Prince George's County's chapter of the NAACP, said the organization submitted documentation to the civil rights division of the Justice Department that shows a double standard exists in the 42-member police department. At a news conference at NAACP offices in Largo, she said African American officers have been subject to sexual harassment, wrongful terminations and a hostile work environment.

"Two African American officers were wrongfully terminated during their 18-month probationary period, while a white officer who had five accidents and two police misconduct charges was promoted during the probationary period," Dillard said. "An African American officer had to present medical documentation and was still placed on patrol duty even though six months pregnant. A white female officer was given light duty with no medical requirements.

"The same officer was subjected to sexual comments," Dillard added.

Dillard said the NAACP filed 10 pages with the Justice Department documenting the officers' complaint.

Henry Hailstock, president of the Montgomery County branch of the NAACP, said he hand-delivered the complaint to Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, head of the civil rights division for the Justice Department, on Friday.

Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said the agency would review the letter to determine what action, if any, is appropriate.

Sgt. Greg Phillips, spokesman for the Hyattsville police, said officials in the department "have not been served with or had the chance to review any documents with regard to the allegations being made by the NAACP and so has no way of making a relevant response until such time as those documents are received and reviewed."

Dillard said the NAACP did not contact Hyattsville police before going to the Justice Department because she said she had little faith that police would take action.

"These police officers have filed complaints about their treatment in the Hyattsville Police Department since 2002, and the city administrator has always cleared" the department, Dillard said. "There was no reason to contact them now because the department has failed to resolve any of these complaints for the last eight years."

Five officers who attended the news conference were advised by their lawyers not to speak or identify themselves because they are facing charges that they say other officers have filed against them in retaliation.

Another officer, Barbara Smith, would not speak but decided to stand before news cameras so that people could attach a face to the complaint, her attorney said.

"She was targeted and harassed because she is refusing to keep quiet," said Smith's Attorney Anitha Johnson. "They wouldn't even give her leave when she was six months pregnant, so she agreed to go on patrol with a gun."

In a statement, Phillips said that the City of Hyattsville enforces an anti-discrimination policy and that he thinks the actions will be found to have been appropriate and consistent with that policy.

Purposeful Discrimination in NYC Fire Department Hiring

2010-01-20T16:57:00.001-08:00

“The city knew the test was discriminatory, and failed to do anything about it.”

Guilty as charged. A federal judge last week ruled that New York City not only discriminated against Blacks attempting to join the Fire Department, but did so intentionally. According to longtime observers, that’s the first time in memory that New York City has been found guilty of intentional discrimination. Establishing guilt by a “pattern-and-practice” of deliberate discrimination is difficult, since it involves more than simply showing that discrimination occurred. It requires the defendant be shown to have known he was discriminating. The Center for Constitutional Law convinced the judge that, not only did the Fire Department's tests have a discriminatory effect on Black applicants, but that the city knew the test was discriminatory, and failed to do anything about it from 1999 to 2002.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg was also named in the suit, along with the former fire commissioner. But both of them got off on a technicality. Although the judge believed there was “strong evidence” that the mayor and the commissioner had both been informed that the examinations were discriminatory, they were nevertheless entitled to “qualified immunity.” In a deposition, Mayor Bloomberg testified that he “did not recall” receiving a report spelling out the discriminatory impact of the firefighters' test.

“The test is similar to others used in big cities across the nation, with the same intent – to maintain the racial status quo.”

So, why was the test so difficult for Black applicants to pass? Many of the multiple choice questions involved arcane details on firefighting that only people that grew up around firefighters would know – a test put together by people in the overwhelmingly white firefighting culture who wanted to keep outsiders – out. The test is similar to others used in big cities across the nation, with the same intent – to maintain the racial status quo. The examination did not test whether an applicant would be a good firefighter. Instead, it tested whether an applicant was immersed in the trivia of firefighting culture. No wonder a bunch of Irish guys pass the test every year, and no wonder only 3.4 percent of the department is Black, in a city that is one quarter African American.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act holds that, if disproportionate numbers of Blacks and Hispanics fail a test, then it must be shown that the test actually measures the skills and knowledge necessary to do the job.
The suit was brought by three people who took the test, and by the Vulcan Society, an organization of Black firefighters. But the total pool of potential plaintiffs includes every applicant that failed to become a firefighter because of the test, and that could reach into the hundreds. The judge has not yet decided what the remedy should be, but civil rights lawyers say he could order that the city change its hiring policies, and that people who failed to get jobs because of the test be paid the salaries they lost.

New York City plans to appeal the judges ruling, claiming that, even if the test did have a discriminatory impact on Blacks, the city didn't intend for that to happen.

Augusta, GA Car Dealership Settles Discrimination Suit

2010-01-14T14:36:00.000-08:00

An Augusta car dealership will pay $140,000 to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit brought after a black employee said he was continuously subjected to racially charged comments.

S&H Thomson, Inc. — which does business as Stokes-Hodges Chevrolet Cadillac Buick Pontiac GMC — has denied wrongdoing in the case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The agency filed the suit in April 2009 on behalf of a black sales manager who complained that a white consultant to the dealership made racially derogatory comments on a weekly basis. When the employee complained, the suit says management asked the consultant to stop — but he continued.

The settlement includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training.

Saks Fifth Avenue Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

2010-01-07T15:42:00.001-08:00

Saks Fifth Avenue Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
New Orleans Store Fired Employee Because of Ulcerative Colitis, Federal Agency Says

HOUSTON — Saks Fifth Avenue, the high-end retailer based in New York City, has agreed to pay $170,000 to settle a disability discrimination suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The settlement resolves the charge of a former Saks makeup artist, Marlene Babin, who claimed that Saks fired her from its New Orleans store because of her disability, ulcerative colitis.

According to the EEOC’s suit (No. 08-4464 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana), Babin began working for Saks in 2000. She was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease, in 1999. From February of 2004 through December of 2004, Babin underwent five major surgeries in connection with her colitis. During this time, she spent a total of three months in the hospital and had to take four extended medical leaves of absence from work.

In January of 2005, while Babin was recovering from her fifth surgery, Saks informed her that she had to return to work in February or be fired, claiming that she had exhausted her available leave. In fact, Babin had more than 900 hours of available paid leave balances, the EEOC said. Although Babin had been scheduled by her surgeon to return to work in March, she obtained a release to return earlier, to avoid being fired.

Just before her return, however, she fell and broke her wrist. On the next work day, Saks told Babin that she was terminated, effective immediately, because she had allegedly exhausted her available leave, and because she could not be accommodated to work with her broken wrist, even though Babin had been working with the broken wrist for six days. However, two other employees in the New Orleans store had in recent years worked with a broken wrist or hand, and were not fired. Saks told Babin to reapply once her wrist had healed.

On the day after her cast was removed, Babin applied for an open makeup artist position at the store’s La Mer counter. Six weeks later, Babin interviewed for the La Mer position. That same day, Saks sent Babin a letter stating that it did not have any positions appropriate for her background, even though Babin had more than 20 years of experience as a makeup artist, the EEOC said. Saks left the position vacant for about two months, later hiring a non-disabled person with no full-time experience as a makeup artist.

Saks later admitted that Babin had in fact been “very qualified” for the La Mer position. The EEOC contended that Saks fired Babin because of her colitis, and that the issue of her broken wrist was merely a cover for its discriminatory motives.

Disability discrimination violates the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. Babin was also represented by private attorney Jeffrey T. Greenberg.

After extensive sworn deposition testimony was taken from witnesses in the case, Saks filed a motion with the court, asking that the suit be dismissed for lack of evidence. Federal Judge Martin L.C. Feldman, presiding for U.S. District Court in New Orleans, issued a 30-page decision in which he denied Saks’s motion to dismiss the case and set forth reasons why a jury could find in Babin’s favor. The decision set the stage for a jury trial, which will not be necessary now because of the settlement.

Besides the monetary award, the company agreed to a number of measures, such as implementing a written policy on disability discrimination and having supervisory and human resources staff undergo training on disability discrimination on an annual basis during the two-year period of the consent decree.

Babin commented on the settlement, “I was devastated when Saks fired me and then refused to hire me back. I loved my job and took a lot of pride and joy from working with people. The court’s decision in refusing to throw my case out means a great deal to me. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to have my story heard. I feel that by this settlement, justice was served.”

Jim Sacher, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Houston, who is in charge of all EEOC litigation in Louisiana, said, “This is a strong and appropriate settlement. The allegations here were very serious and were supported by a wealth of solid evidence. Ms. Babin was an excellent employee who did not deserve to be fired because of her disability. We are pleased that Saks has agreed to compensate Ms. Babin and to take additional steps which will benefit employees and applicants in the future. The EEOC will continue to scrutinize situations like this very closely, and to file suit where necessary to enforce the ADA.”

According to company information, Saks has 53 stores nationwide and employs approximately 15,000 people. In 2009, Saks reported a net worth of more than $900 million.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Privacy Policy | Disclaimer

NAACP, 3 Ex-Workers Sue US Airways in Philadelphia

2010-01-07T08:57:00.001-08:00

Three fired employees are suing US Airways, alleging the airline operated a racially hostile workplace in Philadelphia and fired black employees without grounds.

The local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People joined the suit filed Tuesday by three black women. They say the airline at Philadelphia International Airport assigned black workers to smaller terminals or flights with more black passengers.

Plaintiff Tiffany Salters of Sicklerville, N.J., also says she lost her management job in customer service in 2007 after being wrongly blamed for a small security breach.

Airline spokesman Morgan Durrant says US Airways is committed to diversity and nondiscrimination and investigates all related complaints.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Whirlpool Must Pay Black Woman $1 Million

2009-12-31T13:13:00.001-08:00

Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 6:22 am
By: F. Finley McRae

Whirlpool Corporation, the leading producer of major household appliances, must pay over $1 million to a black woman who was harassed for months, then brutally attacked by a white male co-worker at its Tennessee plant, a federal court judge has ruled.

In his 30-page ruling, Senior Judge John T. Nixon said his decision was based on Carlotta Freeman's "emotional and psychological injuries caused by Whirlpool's ineffective response to her repeated complaints of racial and sexual harassment." The judge presides over the Nashville Division of the United States District Court for Middle Tennessee.

Freeman,"once a cheerful, upbeat woman, became increasingly withdrawn" as a direct result of her attack, according to several medical experts who testified during the bench trial. The attack also left her with chronic, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Now, the judge found, "she can no longer participate in normal activities, including grocery shopping or attending church because she has panic attacks." Since 2004, "she's been in mental health treatment, yet her physicians believe Freeman, 51, will not be able to work again," Nixon's ruling states.

Freeman's ordeal began in January 2004, when she was taunted with "sexually explicit and racially charged statements" from Willie Baker, the white co-worker. Included in them were words in a song he sang to her every day: "I want to f--- you when I wake up every morning and I sing this song about you," Nixon said.

Freeman, an assembly line worker at Whirlpool's LaVergne plant (which was closed last year), told Baker to "leave me alone." Undeterred, Baker continued his barrage and even followed Freeman to the employee break area, where he spewed a steady stream of graphic, lurid desires.

Although Freeman repeatedly complained to her director supervisor, Charlie Fisher, who is white, about Baker's comments and behavior, he did nothing to stop them, according to the ruling. Nor did Fisher "investigate Freeman's allegations, discuss them with Baker or confront him in any way," Nixon wrote.

On March 22, Nixon noted, "Baker used racial slurs while on the line, directing comments such as "I'm tired of you n------s" and "I'm killing you black motherf--kers" at Freeman and her black co-worker, Lillian Lillard. Freeman told Kim Wheeler, a white worker, she felt threatened. Wheeler, in turn, reported Baker's comments to Fisher.

He called Baker, Freeman and Lillard into his office separately; Manufacturing Supervisor Jimmy Lovelace and union steward Richard Eskildsen were also present at each meeting. Fisher told Freeman and Baker to ignore each other and reprimanded Lillard for using her cell phone on the line.

Despite Fisher's warning, Baker approached Freeman again, began speaking and became angry when she told him Fisher forbade any conversation between them. Freeman walked away from Baker, returned to Fisher and reported that Baker has violated his order.

This time, however, Fisher did not offer a promise to "do something." Instead, he advised Freeman to "just go ahead and f--k him and get it over with. Then maybe he would leave you alone."

Ironically, four days later, on March 26, Baker told Fisher he "felt harassed" by his co-workers (but apparently did not name them), and said he was "afraid that someone would get hurt and that he, Baker, would lose his job." Fisher "assured Baker that he would take care of the situation. However, he did nothing to address Baker's concerns," Nixon observed in his ruling.

Later that day, Baker, in a conversation with Fred Contreras, the Director of Human Resources, claimed he "felt threatened by Freeman and that he had already reported this to Fisher." Contreras subsequently said he didn't believe Baker, but nonetheless called Curt Gamauf, the Human Resources Manager, to appraise him of Baker's .....

Obama Administration's Immigration Department - A Bastion of Discrimination Against African American Managers?

2009-12-16T15:01:00.001-08:00

By Dr. Steven B. DavidSon, TX -The nation has selected its first African American president. However, the president has inherited a bastion of discrimination in the Federal Government according Dr. Steven B. DavidSon. DavidSon, who has worked in the Immigration Department since 1998 with a federal career for 35 years, has filed a class complaint against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) alleging that African-Americans have been subject to individual and systemic discrimination for management positions.

According to DavidSon, Immigration and Naturalization operations have an extensive history, but without a record of African-American managers in regional offices. Nationwide, the regional offices have approximately 200 employees with about forty managers. According to DavidSon the USCIS organization, which was transitioned into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) Adjudication operation responsible for immigrant benefits. Apparently, regions were reconstituted with the new organization, but with the same results, no African-American managers.

DavidSon's complaint cites the Regional office in Dallas, Texas where he is employed. He identifies the office as an example where highly qualified African-American candidates have been passed by less qualified white candidates. "We are not talking about disgruntled complainers, low-performers, uneducated, and inexperienced candidates here." DavidSon's complaint alleges USCIS managers have continued the discriminatory practices of the old INS organization. The complaint cites USCIS' Management Directive 715 reported to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where it discloses that minorities are underrepresented in high grade positions, and official and management positions. It also discloses that African Americans are terminated disproportionately. The complaint further cites several other personnel practices adversely affecting African Americans. Davidson continued, "Considering that African Americans in grades 14 and 15 are not nearly as underrepresented in the Department of Homeland Security as-a-whole, their under-representation in USCIS regional offices is revealing." Asked about any personal fears, DavidSon is resolute. "Retaliation in any of its forms is a major concern, but we must stay the course."

DavidSon managed one of the nation's largest federal, field-level Civil Rights, EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) programs in the early 1980s at the Naval Air Rework Facility in Alameda, California. There he witnessed first-hand a precedent setting class complaint, Moses Saunders vs. Department of Navy.

"I never thought I'd ever witness anything so deplorable again. It is the most unfortunate organizational malady any segment of a workforce can experience. And a complaint of this nature is the kind of organizational virus that can spread like a Santa Anta wild fire." According to DavidSon, immigration offices are practically in every urban area in the United States, but the representation of African-American managers is so poor, the complaint could be amended to cover the whole department. DavidSon cites EEO reports, which disclose that civil rights complaints cost the federal government millions-a-year where managers are not transparent, manipulate the promotional system, and resort to vague or highly subjective decision criteria to mask discriminatory bias.

Concerning the status of the complaint DavidSon continues, "The complaint is before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for certification consideration, and the Office of Civil Rights and Inclusion at the Department of Homeland Security. Ironically, the Office of Civil Rights is typically where attorneys will defend the agency's practices as opposed to using the experience as a serious opportunity to institute lasting improvements. According to Washington DC area Attorneys Michael Snider, and Morris Fischer the chances of the agency deciding in favor of complainants is 'next to nil.'"

"Our desire is to see organizational improvements, and to make-whole injured parties. Nevertheless, the fact that something like this could exist in the federal government or anywhere should be appalling to conscientious national leaders, and particularly the White House."

CONTACT:
Deborah Green
401 E. Corporate Suite 100
Lewisville, Texas 75057
469-948-4776

AARD Protests Discrimination at Bloomingdales

2009-12-03T20:19:00.000-08:00

Washington, DC - Americans Against Racism and Discrimination (AARD), held a protest at Bloomingdale's on Black Friday in response to current and former employee's complaints of harassment and discrimination by the retailer. The employees, all African-American, say they experienced hostile and extremely humiliating acts of harassment and discrimination at Bloomingdale's by its management that included; verbal harassment/badgering, job discrimination, threats and race and gender discrimination.

Several employees say they reached out for help and complained to company CEO Michael Gould, but the company retaliated with more harassment, including forcing some of them out of their jobs after they complained.

The AFL-CIO Local 400 union was notified in an effort to curtail the harassment and investigate. Following an investigation, the union filed a grievance against the company and recommended that Bloomingdale's manager, Julia Palmer, issue a formal apology for her behavior in harassing several African-Americans in July 2009, but Bloomingdale's and Ms. Palmer refused.

"'Placism' is what it's called today...'Placism' is the new racism," says a former employee and top-performer at Bloomingdale's Chevy Chase, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "If you're Black, Bloomingdale's means for you to stay in your place," says the employee, who even recently made a trip to Bloomingdale's corporate offices in New York to complain, only to be informed by VP William Hearst that the company has no intentions of changing.

Another former employee and top-performer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says that when he asked VP William Hearst why the company refused to hire any Black men as general managers at any of its stores or in senior level management, Hearst made a special trip to Washington where he stripped him of his title as Giorgio Armani specialist and told him to quit, or be fired.

"Bloomingdale's is a racist company that harasses and discriminates against African-Americans, especially Black men," says the employee. He went on to say that Bloomingdale's is "...a revolving door of racial harassment and discrimination against Blacks, and is a place where Black excellence, especially among men, is loathed."

CONTACT:
Leanna Nicks
202-374-1718
AARDUSA@yahoo.com

City pays $145,000 in bias case

2009-11-30T13:08:00.000-08:00

Former ITS director claimed reverse discrimination played role in firing.

Updated 11:26 PM Thursday, November 19, 2009

DAYTON — The Dayton City Commission has agreed to pay a $145,000 settlement to an employee who claims reverse discrimination played a role in his firing.

William E. Hill, once the city’s director of Information and Technology Services, is white. He was fired by former City Manager Rashad Young, who is black.

City officials and Young declined to comment on the award. Hill’s attorney also did not respond to a request for an interview.

Hill’s personnel file and a 13-page investigative report commissioned by the city pieced together with the lawsuit Hill filed in Montgomery County Commons Pleas Court tell a tale of two men who started out working cordially together.

Hill worked for the city since 1980, including 17 years as a police officer. In 1997, he became the director of ITS.

Hill also continued activities as a sworn officer first with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office and later as a special deputy in Greene County.

Young, then deputy director of ITS and still working his way up the ranks at City Hall, reported to Hill.

But, before he left to take a job in Cincinnati in 2002, Young was named acting assistant city manager. Hill claims Young urged him to hire his step-grandfather, Charles Evans, as deputy director of ITS, according to the lawsuit. Hill acted on Young’s suggestion.

When Young returned to Dayton in 2005 as an assistant city manager, he was given authority over the ITS department, including Hill and Evans.

“Caught between grandfather and grandson, Hill began to experience difficulties with Evans and in his relationship with those above him in city management,” the lawsuit states.

Problems escalated when Hill issued a reprimand to Evans for violation of the city’s sick leave policy.

“Evans exploded in response, accused Hill of being a racist, indicated he would take the matter to his grandson, and threatened that Hill’s employment would be terminated ...,” according to the lawsuit.

A 2005 work review in Hill’s employment file found him to be superior in terms of technical competence, but “unacceptable in terms of judgment, management style and execution.”

Then-City Manager James Dinneen concluded Hill should be fired based on these deficiencies. Young persuaded Dinneen to give Hill a poor review and no raise.

In March 2005, city officials told Hill he must quit working for the Greene County sheriff or lose his city job, in accordance with the City Charter.

Hill claimed former City Manager Valerie Lemmie orally promised him he could remain a sworn officer and he appealed the decision to the city’s Code of Ethics Committee (of which Young was a member). Hill lost.

Federal investigators entered the fray in 2006 seizing computers, disc drives, VCR tapes, compact discs and DVDs from Evans’ office and home. He pleaded guilty in United States District Court in 2008 to one count of possession of child pornography.

Hill also came under investigation — by city officials — when an employee complained that inappropriate e-mails were being sent throughout the city e-mail system.

Dinneen put Hill on administrative leave on March 28, 2006.

“... I believe Mr. Hill did not fully cooperate in the March 28 investigation of the circumstances regarding his participation in the inappropriate e-mail traffic, and that this lack of cooperation, is, alone, an adequate reason for termination of his employment, if you should choose to exercise your discretion in this matter,” Paul Hallinan of Porter Wright Morris & Arthur stated in an investigative report to Young.

Young hired Hallinan on July 14, 2006, after Dinneen left Dayton to take a job in Florida.

Young signed off on Hill’s firing on Oct. 5, 2006.

City records show that during Young’s tenure as a manager in Dayton, 50 percent of the 24 employees he hired where white men.

Phila. black firefighters sue union, cite racism

2009-11-12T11:39:00.000-08:00

By Troy Graham

Inquirer Staff Writer

In a federal lawsuit filed yesterday, an organization of African American firefighters accused the Philadelphia firefighters union of being "racially harassing and abusive" to blacks.

The lawsuit said union leadership was dominated by members of a predominantly white firefighters organization dedicated to ending a 25-year-old federal consent decree that paved the way for the hiring of many black firefighters.

The members of that group, the Concerned American Fire Fighters Association (CAFFA), have pushed their agenda at the union, the lawsuit said. It noted that the union's December bargaining proposal to the city included the request that "any and all quota-based hiring practices" be eliminated.

"They're using my union dues to do it," said Kenneth Greene, president of Club Valiants, the black firefighters group. "It's a slap in the face."

The president of Concerned American Fire Fighters, Mike Bresnan, said the proposal to eliminate quota-based hiring subsequently was dropped, in part because an arbitration panel has no standing to rule on the issue.

"The proposal came from the membership," he said. "It's a democratic process."

The lawsuit said the Philadelphia Fire Fighters' Union, Local 22, has no black officers and only one black employee - a janitor. Union meetings have become so divisive that black firefighters no longer attend.

"African Americans have no voice in the union," the suit said.

The lawsuit also cited numerous postings from the union's private, Internet message board that mock black firefighters as lazy and stupid, and use "ebonics" to denigrate blacks.

Among other remedies, the suit askes a federal judge to appoint a civil-rights monitor to oversee the local until it is no longer "a racially hostile union."

The suit seeks class-action status for the more than 500 black Philadelphia firefighters.

Bill Gault, president of Local 22, said the allegation that the union was racist was "completely not true." He acknowledged there was only one black janitor working for the union, but said "the ladies who work for me in the office are firefighters' wives."

"Two of them have been there longer than I've been on the job," he said.

Gault had not seen a copy of the lawsuit yesterday and could not comment at length. He said he simply wanted "everybody on the same page in the contract negotiations with the city."

At the heart of the suit is the philosophical battle over the 1984 federal consent decree, which mandated the hiring of more black firefighters and replaced an entrance exam deemed to discriminate against black applicants.

The consent decree, which resulted from a 1974 lawsuit, was extended indefinitely by a federal court in 1999.

Some white firefighters have begun to push back against the hiring and promotion processes.

This year, the city paid a $275,000 settlement to five white lieutenants who said they were denied promotions by exams skewed to favor minority candidates.

This summer, three white candidates for the fire academy sued, arguing that they had been denied entrance in favor of less-qualified minority candidates.

Bresnan's organization has been allowed to intervene in federal court on behalf of the three in an attempt to overturn the consent decree.

"We view it as antiquated," Bresnan said. "Most of the guys getting skipped over weren't even born when the consent decree was enacted."

He also said the decree harms black firefighters, who get "stigmatized" as affirmative action hires regardless of their qualifications.

Greene, a lieutenant with Engine 73 and a 17-year veteran of the Fire Department, said the consent decree was still needed.

While blacks make up 45 percent of the city's population, they account for just 27 percent of the Fire Department, according to the lawsuit.

They also are underrepresented among ranking officers, the suit said, although the commissioner, Lloyd M. Ayers, is black.

Ayers, a former president of Club Valiants, could not be reached for comment yesterday.

"No way is there parity or equality in this department," Greene said. "Based on the diversity of the city of Philadelphia, this department is not diverse at all."

Greene also said the Internet postings on the union message board prove that racism, which he likened to a fire, still exists in the department.

"To go to the union Web site and see them calling people of color 'animals' . . . it creates a problem for me as a leader," he said. "All you need is one segment of people to start it up, and it's rolling again."

Bresnan said there was "absolutely a racial division in the department, much of it over the consent decree."

Bresnan said that he, Ayers, and former union president Brian McBride met with Mayor Nutter in 2008 to discuss the consent decree. They talked about setting up meetings between CAFFA, the Valiants, and a Hispanic firefighters organization.

Those meetings were never arranged, Bresnan said.

"When you talk, stuff can be avoided, but it's just lawsuit after lawsuit," he said. "I'm still willing to meet. I think a lot of this stuff can be worked out."

The dispute over the Web-site comments echoes a lawsuit filed this summer by an organization of black police officers against Domelights.com, a now-defunct Internet forum for discussing crime and police news.

That Web site, founded by a Philadelphia police sergeant, hosted "blatantly racist" content, according to the lawsuit, which is pending.

The same lawyers, Brian and David Mildenberg, filed the Domelights and Club Valiants suits.

CAFFA was founded in Chicago in 1993 and also has a chapter in Cleveland. Until at least 2001, the lawsuit said, the Chicago chapter was known as the Caucasian American Fire Fighters Association.

The lawsuit said that at least three top union officers are members of CAFFA, though Gault is not. CAFFA and the city are named as defendants.

Bresnan said CAFFA doesn't disclose its membership. He did acknowledge that union vice president Kelvin Fong is a member, and noted that Fong is of Chinese descent.

Gault said CAFFA was just one of about "20 or 30" groups that firefighters belong to.

"Local 22 has nothing to do with CAFFA," he said. "You got the Irish kids, the Italian kids, the Polish kids. There's so many organizations."

He said he was disappointed that Greene did not give him a heads-up on the lawsuit.

"What their motivation is, I don't know," he said. "I thought we were all firefighters."

Greene, talking about when he saw the first union bargaining proposal, expressed a similar sentiment.

"I had to pray about it real hard. I was ready to blow my top. I couldn't believe someone could be so stupid," he said. "These are guys I crawled hallways with, I fought fires with."

The Philadelphia NAACP joined Club Valiants as a plaintiff in the suit, which also asks for unspecified payment in damages.

Contact staff writer Troy Graham at 215-854-2730 or tgraham@phillynews.com.

Firefighter Test Brings New Haven a Fresh Suit

2009-10-18T15:25:00.001-07:00

Published: October 15, 2009

The city of New Haven, which the United States Supreme Court found this year to have discriminated against a group of mostly white firefighters, was hit with another federal lawsuit on Thursday, this time from a black firefighter who contends that the way the city scored a 2003 promotion test will keep him from getting the position he deserves.

Michael Briscoe, a 10-year veteran who is 37, says in his suit that the scoring was unfair because it undervalued the oral portion of the test, on which he did better. His suit, which was filed by David Rosen, the lawyer who brought the case more than 30 years ago that first helped integrate the department, contends the oral part of the test more clearly measures the skills required to do the job.

New Haven had seven vacancies for captain and seven for lieutenant when it administered the exams to 118 test-takers in 2003. The written portion counted for 60 percent of the grade and the oral part the rest.

African-Americans argued then that they were underrepresented among the high scorers, and the city never certified the results, so the promotions were never granted. That decision prompted the 2004 suit by the largely white firefighters, led by Frank Ricci, who had done well. The Supreme Court in June found in favor of Mr. Ricci and his group, and the city said Thursday that it now intended to certify the 2003 results.

In his suit, Mr. Briscoe says he scored the highest of the 77 candidates for lieutenant on the oral portion of the exam, but he expected to be only 24th from the top given the way the city weighted the two sections. His suit says that many cities place more weight on oral versus written exams.

New Haven’s corporation counsel, Victor A. Bolden, issued a statement that the city was “focused on moving forward not backwards.” He said that he expected the city to “make promotions consistent” with the list generated by the 2003 exam, but that “the city will continue to pursue better means for making future promotions in the department.”

Karen Torre, the lawyer who brought the Ricci case, issued her own statement: “It is our position that Mr. Rosen’s suit is legally baseless, untimely and filed for the improper purpose of attempting to delay my client’s promotion and the city of New Haven’s compliance with an opinion and order of the United States Supreme Court.”

Former Black WPB police officer wins discrimination lawsuit

2009-10-05T16:29:00.000-07:00

Thu Oct 1, 2009

Former Black WPB police officer wins discrimination lawsuit, but is awarded
nothing in monetary damages

By K. Chandler, Originally posted 9/30/2009, Westside Gazette

After waiting nearly a decade for his day in court, former West Palm Beach police officer William McCray finally had his discrimination case heard, but the end results were not what anyone might have imagined.

McCray had wanted between $100,000 and $150,000 in compensatory damages for years of alleged discrimination on the force. What he got instead was a verdict in his favor from the jury, but little else.

Testifying last was Sheriff Ric Bradshaw who was the West Palm Beach Chief of Police for eight years before ending his career with the police department in 2004 after he successfully ran for Sheriff of Palm Beach County.

While the former police chief recalled warning McCray 10 years ago that he'd better "pick it up and pay attention to business," Bradshaw had problems with recalling many other incidents that McCray's attorneys Sid Garcia and Barry Silver brought up to bolster McCray's discrimination case, including the fact that 15 Black police officers had written the department alleging discrimination.

Among the issues brought before the court by the plaintiff's legal team was the double standard that allowed White officers to get away with more serious infractions, while Black officers were investigated and punished far more
severely for less serious infractions.

Case in point was former Detective Geoffrey Woodward who testified that he'd been given a two-day suspension for falsifying information to a defense lawyer during a deposition involving a man fighting a child abuse charge. By contrast, McCray — who had by then filed his discrimination suit — was terminated for allegedly lying during an Internal Affairs (IA) investigation that resulted from an incident at the 45 Street Flea Market in which a citizen filed a complaint against McCray after he'd been ticketed while parking in a no parking zone. It might be noted that after he was terminated from the WPB Police Department, McCray was later hired on as a Sheriff's deputy with Palm Beach County, Fla. which was then under the leadership of Sheriff Robert Neumann.

The real `kicker' in this long-awaited case, however, was that somehow the seven-member, all-White jury misunder-stood or misinterpreted the trial court's jury instructions and instead of awarding McCray substantial damages for the pain and suffering that resulted from harsher disciplinary actions and other proven discriminatory actions, the jury instead awarded him a mere $3,000 in economic damages to recoup lost wages.

According to Calvin Bryant — one of five police officers who won a 2004 discrimination law-suit against the City of West Palm Beach – much of the jury's confusion may have resulted from pre-trial motions forbid-ding the plaintiff's lawyers from presenting evidence or bringing up McCray's termination during the trial.

"Under all of the testimony, the jury themselves obviously came to the conclusion that McCray had been retaliated against and fired. But because of all the pre-trial maneuvering, the termination issue was excluded from the trial. But the jury, because of their own personal feelings based on evidence they heard and testimony, wanted to correct that issue."

"If there's any blame to be shared, the trial court judge himself should bear much of the responsibility for confusing the jury. A previous judge entered the order to exclude any testimony regarding McCray's termination, but Circuit Judge Donald Hafele had the power to overrule or set aside the pre-trial motions.

"There were attempts made by attorneys Garcia and Silver to get that ruling overturned or reversed before Judge Hafele, but he would not change it," stated Bryant.

Now, after all of that, McCray's lawyers may have no other recourse, but to call for another trial just to determine damages.

Former Wall Street Journal editor may pursue racial bias case

2009-08-20T12:59:00.000-07:00

Tue Aug 18, 2009

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former Wall Street Journal editor may pursue a racial discrimination case against her one-time employer, after alleging that she was fired because she is black, a federal judge has ruled.

Judge Deborah Batts of the federal district court in Manhattan said a juror could conclude that the race of Carolyn Phillips, the paper's first black assistant managing editor, was "at least one motivating factor" in decisions leading to her November 2002 dismissal after two decades at the paper.

"Plaintiff has produced sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether intentional discrimination influenced the adverse employment decisions at issue," possibly violating federal and state law, Batts said in her 45-page order dated Monday.

Batts' ruling sets the stage for a possible trial. The judge rejected Phillips' separate claim alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. Phillips originally sought compensatory damages and $5 million of punitive damages.

The Journal at the time was owned by Dow Jones & Co and is now owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

"Dow Jones does not discriminate, period," Dow Jones spokeswoman Ashley Huston said. "We are gratified the court dismissed the disability claim, and we expect to prevail on the other claim at trial."

Phillips' lawyer did not immediately return a request for comment.

According to Monday's order, Phillips had regularly received positive performance reviews as well as five merit pay increases during her tenure, but would come to feel marginalized after becoming the Journal's head of recruitment.

The judge said a juror could find that race may have been one factor behind possible dissatisfaction with Phillips' job performance expressed by the Journal's managing editor and a deputy managing editor, Paul Steiger and Daniel Hertzberg.

She also said a juror could find that those editors preferred two white candidates for various responsibilities over Phillips because of her race and that Steiger failed to assign Phillips new duties because he preferred Caucasian staff.

According to the order, Phillips also alleged that Steiger made comments to her that were or could be racial in nature.

In one such alleged instance, Phillips said he told her he felt like a "black man in Beverly Hills" after being covered with soot and ash following the September 11 attacks that ruined the Journal's New York office. Steiger contested that he ever made the comment, according to the order.

Steiger, now chief executive of the nonprofit ProPublica, said in an interview on Tuesday: "Carolyn Phillips was not discriminated against on account of her race while at the Journal. I expect a jury, when it hears all the testimony, will agree."

Hertzberg recently joined Bloomberg News as senior editor-at-large. Bloomberg spokeswoman Judith Czelusniak declined to comment.

The case is Phillips v. Dow Jones & Co, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), No. 04-5178.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

UPS sued for back wages by Calif. employee

2009-08-20T12:16:00.000-07:00

By Rachel Tobin Ramos

She claims UPS didn’t pay her for regularly working 10 to 20 hours per week overtime. Meza makes a salary of $51,000 annually.

Her lawyer, Steven L. Wittels, said she works in sales but does not manage people. He said her job was classified as managerial to avoid overtime pay requirements. “That’s how companies in this day and age try to evade their responsibilities under the wage and hour laws,” he said.

Wittels thinks the potential class includes about 5,000 account managers. Meza is the only plaintiff so far, he said.

UPS spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg said she couldn’t comment on the suit but added, “We value the account managers in our sales organization. There is a defined sales compensation structure. We believe they are [properly] classified as exempt and not subject to overtime.”

Court: SC lawsuit against Nucor Steel can proceed

2009-08-19T15:55:00.001-07:00

By KATRINA A. GOGGINS

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A federal appeals court has revived a discrimination lawsuit brought by black employees who claim they worked in a racially hostile environment at a Nucor Steel mill in South Carolina, attorneys said Tuesday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in an Aug. 7 decision that the case against the Charlotte-based manufacturer can go forward with class-action status. It has been sent back to federal district court and will be tried in Charleston, S.C.

"While this class certification doesn't mean they've won ... the decision is a victory," lead attorney Robert L. Wiggins Jr. said in a statement. "Being involved in this case as a plaintiff has taken courage, but these individuals believed that it was important to change the horrific situation at Nucor for all black employees, and not just themselves."

The lawsuit charged that racial slurs and monkey noises were broadcast over the radio system at the company's Huger mill. The plaintiffs — seven black former and current Nucor employees — also claim that racially charged e-mails depicting blacks with nooses around their necks were circulated, that some employees used racial slurs when referring to black workers and that the mill discriminated against blacks in making promotions.

Nucor executives on Tuesday called the claims "absolutely false" and unsupported. The company said it will file an appeal by the end of the week.

"Unfortunately, anybody can make any claim," said Giff Daughtridge, a Nucor Steel vice president and general manager. "These allegations are false. They're not supported by evidence. They are not supported by the record that is in the court. So, we are very confident about how the appeal is going to turn out."

There is no radio broadcasting system at the company and no evidence to support claims that there was an environment of racial hostile or that blacks weren't promoted because of discrimination, Daughtridge said.

The suit was originally filed in December 2003 in Arkansas, connected with claims of discrimination against other Nucor facilities. But the South Carolina claims were separated and transferred in 2004, attorneys said.

In its order, the appeals court said the claims "speak for themselves."

"Once, an employee held up a noose and told a black co-worker that it was for him," the order reads.

The three-judge panel also noted that the plaintiffs presented compelling, direct evidence of discrimination in promotions "such as denials of promotions when more junior white employees were granted promotions, denial of the ability to cross-train during regular shifts like their white counterparts, and a statement by a white supervisor that he would never promote a black employee."

Blacks were promoted at a far lower rate than the percentage of qualified black applicants, the court noted.

Armand Derfner, a Charleston attorney also representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the decision by the appeals court sets a precedent.

"Nationally, it is a shot in the arm for all those who have feared that our courts will not protect civil rights and civil liberties," he said. "This case is important. People talk about 'we're in a post racial society.' Well, a lot of things have improved ... but we're not there yet."

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of punitive damages and back pay for workers denied promotions they were entitled to, Derfner said.

On the Net:
http://www.nucor.com
http://www.harebrains.com/nucor
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Kodak agrees to settle race discrimination lawsuit

2009-07-28T09:50:00.001-07:00

By CAROLYN THOMPSON (AP) – Jul 15, 2009

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — Eastman Kodak Co. has agreed to pay $21.4 million to settle legal action brought by black workers who claim the photography products maker paid and promoted them less than their white co-workers.

The deal was given preliminary approval by a federal judge last month, according to court documents. It would have the Rochester-based company, while admitting no wrongdoing, pay amounts ranging from $1,000 to $75,000 to 3,021 past and current workers.

The proposed settlement would end both a 2004 class-action lawsuit brought by a group called Employees Committed for Justice and a similar suit filed by other black workers in 2007.

Kodak spokesman Christopher Veronda said the company and plaintiffs had agreed not to publicly discuss the proposed settlement. He provided a written statement that said all sides "believe that this settlement represents a resolution of mutual interest."

"The parties took into account the risk of further litigation, including the potential for significant delay as well as the potential for further lengthy and expensive legal proceedings," the statement said.

As part of the deal, Kodak promised to enhance its diversity training for supervisors and said it would hire an industrial psychologist and labor statistician to review its pay and promotion policies and recommend improvements.

A final approval hearing is scheduled for Sept. 15 in federal court in Rochester.

The settlement comes a decade after Kodak paid $10 million in back wages and granted $3 million in annual raises to correct disparities in pay and promotions for black and female workers in some departments dating to 1996.

Plaintiffs in the 2004 lawsuit charged that the 1999 program did nothing to correct Kodak's discriminatory practices and accused the company of maintaining "a work environment that is hostile to its African American employees."

Plaintiffs said that in addition to being passed over for promotions, they were subject to racist comments from co-workers and supervisors and graffiti on bathroom walls, lockers and delivery trucks.

One of the plaintiffs, reached Wednesday by phone, declined to comment on the settlement, saying she had signed a confidentiality agreement.

A call to the group's lead attorney, Shanon Carson of the Philadelphia firm Berger & Montague, was not immediately returned.

On the Net:

Eastman Kodak Co.: http://www.kodak.com