American Association for Affirmative Action Expresses Disappointment in Supreme Court's New Haven Firefighters Decision

American Association for Affirmative Action
Press Release

June 30, 2009

Court creates confusion in Ricci v. DeStefano case by imposing a tougher standard for excluding discriminatory selection procedures

Washington, D.C. - June 30, 2009 - The American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), an association of equal employment opportunity (EEO), diversity and affirmative action professionals founded in 1974, expressed disappointment in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Ricci v. DeStefano case, handed down on June 29, 2009. In Ricci, the City of New Haven, CT., administered a test for firefighter promotional opportunities and subsequently chose not to proceed when the results showed "adverse impact", i.e., that none of the African-American candidates would have been eligible for promotion. Ricci, a successful white candidate, filed suit alleging that the city's decision was unconstitutional and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found for the white plaintiffs and held that the city violated Title VII because it needed to establish a "strong basis in evidence" that the exams were not job related or that another, less discriminatory test existed.

"This 'strong basis in evidence' test creates a higher burden for employers who discover that their selection processes may have an adverse impact on women or racial groups," said ReNee Dunman, AAAA's president. "Without articulating what the 'strong basis in evidence' standard means, or remanding the case so this issue can be explained, this ruling also places employers between a rock and a hard place: if they find that their selection processes have an adverse effect on some racial groups or women, they have to risk litigation if they use the tests or if they don't." The Court's decision will lead to confusion and to more litigation. The decision also creates an expectation by the successful candidates that they will be hired or promoted based on the results of the test and effectively limits the employer's discretion.

A majority of the Court acknowledged that employment discrimination continues to exist, however. Total discrimination charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission increased 15% in one year from 82,792 in FY 2007 and 95,402 in FY 2008. Fire Departments around the country, including in New Haven, have a long history of excluding minorities and women, and that history is often perpetuated today through vestiges of arbitrary selection procedures from a bygone era. As Justice Ginsburg wrote, "Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow." Employers and governments continue to have an obligation to take proactive measures to end discrimination.

Despite the Court's disappointing ruling, the law continues to require employers to avoid policies that are discriminatory in practice, and there is a range of steps that employers can take to make sure they are providing equal opportunity in the workplace. "We call on the President (and the civil rights agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice) to work with dispatch and issue guidance for employers on their equal opportunity obligations in light of this decision," added Ms. Dunman.

###

AAAA Hosts Two Webinars in July

(Save the Date - Registration Opens Soon!)

Supreme Court Hands Down Key Decision about Discrimination and Testing:What You Need To Know about Ricci v. DeStefano

Thursday, July 9, 2009 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST

Common Issues Covered/ Uncovered in an OFCCP Audit

Thursday, July 23, 2009 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST.

Watch www.affirmativeaction.org for more information!

Supreme Court Ruling Creates New Legal Standard That Restricts Equal Employment Opportunity

NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Press Release
June 29, 2009

(New York, NY) - Today's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano is a step backward fromthe goal of equal employment opportunity. A narrow majority of the Court created a new legal standard that places additional hurdles in front of employers seeking to fulfill their obligations under this nation's core antidiscrimination law. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is disappointed that five Justices departed from well-established precedents that were properly applied by the courts below. "The Supreme Court's interpretation imposes new burdens on employers and makes it more difficult to maintain a discrimination-free workplace," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel. The four dissenting Justices, who joined an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, accurately explained the critical need for robust compliance with federal civil rights laws, especially in fire departments, which have historically and notoriously denied employment to African Americans, other people of color, and women. Justice Ginsburg criticized the majority for telling only half the story and ignoring that "[f]irefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow." Although we have made some progress as a nation, discrimination in firefighting jobs remains a significant problem. Just this year, the U.S. Department of Justice entered into settlement agreements requiring Portsmouth, Virginia and Dayton, Ohio to cease using discriminatory procedures to hire firefighters. "Faced with the reality of continuing racial exclusion, an employer has a responsibility to abandon unfair employment practices and adopt those that are fair and effective," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel. While the Court's ruling unnecessarily invalidates New Haven's actions, the majority opinion does not forbid employers from careful and deliberate efforts to develop employment selection procedures that fairly predict workplace success without fencing out entire groups. The Court's majority recognized that "employers' voluntary compliance efforts . . . are essential to [our civil rights laws] and to Congress's efforts to eradicate workplace discrimination." LDF believes that ultimately, employers will be able to comply with this decision and continue to take vigorous steps to ensure equal opportunity for all workers.

Supreme Court Rules for White Firefighters on Job-Test Case

Workforce Management
June 29, 2009

A narrow majority of the Supreme Court ruled on Monday, June 29, that New Haven, Connecticut, could not justify throwing out the results of employment tests that would have promoted only white firefighters to the rank of lieutenant or captain.
The 5-4 majority said that the city had to show a “strong basis in evidence” that the exams were not job related or that another, less discriminatory test existed.
The decision is sure to have an impact on the private sector, where employment tests are increasingly popular. Experts are urging companies to be careful when using them in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
After administering the promotion tests in November and December of 2003, the city decided not to certify the results because of concerns that it was not fair to African-American candidates and could leave the city open to a lawsuit.
Based on the tests, all the top 10 candidates for lieutenant were white and seven of the top nine for captain were white, along with two Hispanics.
The white firefighters, led by Frank Ricci, sued New Haven, arguing that they were unfairly denied promotions. A district court granted summary judgment in favor of New Haven, and the ruling was upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, where Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor participated in the decision.
The Supreme Court majority overruled the 2nd Circuit, holding that New Haven effectively discriminated against the white firefighters in order to prevent discrimination against the African-American applicants. The former, “disparate treatment,” and the latter, “disparate impact,” are both prohibited by federal discrimination laws.
But the court ruled that in order to protect minorities against disparate impact, the city had to demonstrate that there was something wrong with the test, which it failed to do.
“[T]here is no evidence—let alone the required strong basis in evidence—that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the city,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority that included Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr.
“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Kennedy wrote.
In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the majority ignored evidence of flaws in the New Haven tests....

“Undertaking employment tests should be well thought out before [they] are utilized,” said Linda Cavanna-Wilk, of counsel to Ford & Harrison in New York.* “The decision significantly increases the legal risk associated with the use of selection devices or employment tests. An employer’s back is somewhat against the wall.”
Companies must be prepared to show that exams are relevant in the hiring process.

*[AAAA Note: Ms. Cavanna-Wilk is a professor for AAAA's Professional Development and Training Institute.]

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/51/55.php

Leading Senator Intends to Scrap E-Verify Employment Verification System

Workforce Management
June 25, 2009

A senator poised to lead the immigration reform debate on Capitol Hill wants to scrap a government-run electronic employment verification system and replace it with one that incorporates biometric identification.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York and chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, faulted the government system, known as E-Verify, for not being able to detect identity fraud.
“E-Verify is both unfair and ineffective,” Schumer told reporters on Capitol Hill on Thursday, June 25, prior to participating in a White House meeting on immigration with President Barack Obama.
Schumer said that E-Verify, which compares information from I-9 forms against Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases, is unfair because it singles out people with Hispanic surnames. It is ineffective because illegal workers can slip through the system by stealing Social Security numbers and making fake IDs.
“You need a biometric,” Schumer said. “You need a picture. You need it to be unforgeable.”
He first indicated his intentions on employment verification in a speech Wednesday, June 24, in Washington in which he laid out seven principles for immigration reform.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/50/94.php

CHATEAU DEL MAR / HICKORY HILLS COUNTRY CLUB TO PAY UP TO $690,000 TO SETTLE EEOC SEX AND RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION LAWSUITS

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
June 22, 2009
Press Release
Popular Banquet Facility and Country Club Routinely Harassed Female Employees, Refused to Hire Blacks and Sued Victims as Retaliation, Federal Agency Charged

CHICAGO – A popular Hickory Hills, Ill., banquet facility and country club will pay up to $690,000 to settle two lawsuits, charging sex and race discrimination and retaliation, brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
Federal District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer has entered a consent decree resolving the two lawsuits against Chateau Del Mar, Inc. and Hickory Properties, Inc., known as Hickory Hills Country Club. Under the decree, the defendants are required pay $590,000, including attorneys’ fees, to a class of women who endured a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation, and, in addition, up to another $100,000 to African American applicants who were denied hire because of their race.
In the government’s first suit, filed on March 25, 2008 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC alleged that the principal and manager of the facility sexually harassed a class of women employees over a period of years and refused to hire African American applicants. Female employees were called derogatory names and belittled as well as enduring sexual advances and, in some instances, physical assaults, the EEOC said.
Shortly after three of the women filed their own private federal lawsuit for sex discrimination on October 24, 2007 (captioned Curry, Knable, & Raddatz v. Chateau Del Mar, Inc., Steven Gianakas, and Hickory Properties, Inc., No. 07 C 6021), Chateau Del Mar and Steven Gianakas sued them in Illinois state court. Their seven-count complaint alleged a wide variety of claimed wrongs, including, but not limited to, physical and mental injuries, “tripping and pushing Gianakas,” breach of fiduciary duty, and destroying property. (Chateau Del Mar and Steven P. Gianakas v. Knable, et al, Circuit Court of Cook County No. 2007L012463.)
An EEOC investigation determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that the women were sued because they exercised their federally protected rights to protest discrimination. The circuit court of Cook County dismissed the lawsuit Chateau Del Mar and Gianakas had filed. Thereafter, the EEOC filed a second lawsuit on September 22, 2008 against Chateau Del Mar for retaliation. The three individual private plaintiffs intervened in the EEOC’s retaliation case, and all three suits were docketed as related cases before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer.
“This serious and ongoing harassment of women was unconscionable enough. Then these defendants made a bad situation worse by punishing the victims for engaging in protected activity,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “This kind of retaliation is plainly illegal, even if it is cleverly disguised as a supposedly legitimate lawsuit.”
Both of the federal suits were resolved by a consent decree signed June 16 by Judge Pallmeyer and transmitted to the parties June 19. In addition to providing for monetary relief to victims, the decree will enjoin Chateau Del Mar and Hickory Hills from engaging in sex or race discrimination or retaliation, and require that they hire an independent monitor to accept and investigate charges of discrimination and train all of their employees on federal anti-discrimination laws. Further, Chateau Del Mar and Hickory Hills will be required to place an advertisement in the Southtown Star newspaper seeking job applicants who were rejected based on their race from March 6, 2005 to the present. EEOC will determine who is eligible for relief.
“These defendants have marketed themselves as a venue for family celebrations such as weddings and receptions and have enjoyed considerable patronage from the African American community,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “So the instances of discrimination in this case were particularly troubling. But we are cautiously optimistic that the consent decree spells the beginning of the end of on-the-job sex and race discrimination at Chateau Del Mar and Hickory Hills.”
EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason, who with Trial Attorney June Calhoun litigated the case, said, “The decree itself provides for monetary relief for victims of sex discrimination, and we now look forward to delivering appropriate compensation to individuals who come forward and identify themselves as victims of race discrimination.”
The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and are captioned EEOC v. Chateau Del Mar, Inc. and Hickory Properties, Inc., No. 08 C 1720, and EEOC, Curry, Knable & Raddatz v. Chateau Del Mar, Inc., No. 08 C 5388. The individual plaintiffs were represented by Timothy Nolan of the Nolan Law Office.
Chateau Del Mar and Hickory Hills Country Club are part of the Hickory Hills Resort, which also includes Condessa Del Mar, another banquet facility in Alsip, Ill., and PGN Fun, a miniature golf course and arcade, also in Hickory Hills.
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.

A bad test for racial equity

The Boston Globe
June 30, 2009

TO THIS DAY, black and Hispanic applicants suffer unfair disadvantages in the job market, in the form of either overt discrimination or hiring and promotion policies that perpetuate old wrongs. But a ham-handed effort by the City of New Haven to avoid a civil-rights lawsuit - which prompted a stiff response by the US Supreme Court yesterday - could make it harder for employers to change their ways voluntarily.
In 2003, New Haven’s Civil Service Board decided not to certify the results of a Fire Department exam after the results indicated that no black firefighters would be eligible for promotion. Eighteen white firefighters sued. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled for them by a 5-to-4 margin.
New Haven was asking for trouble: The city threw out a test that had already been given - after some firefighters spent vast amounts of time and money preparing. The city’s clumsy actions seem to violate basic fairness. And they are sure to fuel opposition to affirmative action, which is still sorely needed in a diverse society.
More complex than it looks New Haven argued that, if it hadn’t overturned the test results, black firefighters could have sued on the grounds that the test effectively discriminated against them. In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled that the city should not have bowed to the threat of a lawsuit, because it could reasonably have defended the test as related to the job of an officer in the Fire Department.
But as a matter of law, the four dissenting justices have the better case. No one has a right to a promotion. And as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points out in her opinion, the majority has now created an impossible standard for employers who’ve kept minorities out previously but choose to mend their ways: Unless they explicitly admit that they’ve put up unnecessary obstacles in the past, employers will be hard-pressed to abolish hiring and promotion practices that disproportionately screen out black and Hispanic employees. Ginsburg writes that “an employer who discards a dubious selection process can anticipate costly . . . litigation in which its chances for success . . . are highly problematic.’’

Full editorial: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/06/30/a_bad_test_for_racial_equity/

Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Bias Case

The New York Times
June 29, 2009
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that white firefighters in New Haven were subjected to race discrimination when the city threw out a promotional examination on which they had done well and black firefighters poorly.
“The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding that the possibility of a lawsuit from minority firefighters was not a lawful justification for the city’s action.
“Fear of litigation alone,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”
The 5-to-4 ruling, which reversed an appeals court decision joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, now a Supreme Court nominee, will have broad impact, lawyers specializing in employment discrimination law said.
“This decision will change the landscape of civil rights law,” said Sheila Foster, a law professor at Fordham.
The new standards announced by the court will make it much harder for employers to discard the results of hiring and promotion tests once they are administered, even if they have a disproportionately negative impact on members of a given racial group.
Public employers that use civil service examinations and similar tests will be most directly affected, but the principle announced by the court applies to all employers and all sorts of procedures used to rank and sort potential and current employees.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reading a dissenting statement from the bench, said the majority had undermined a crucial civil rights law. “Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form,” she said. “The damage today’s decision does to that objective is untold.”
The New Haven case had drawn wide interest, in part because of Judge Sotomayor’s role in it.
Supporters of her Supreme Court nomination said Monday’s decision changed the law and thus did not reflect negatively on the decision she participated in. Critics asserted that the appeals court’s approach had not been fully endorsed by any justice.
Justice Kennedy, writing for himself and the four members of the court’s conservative wing, said the case required the court to try to reconcile two aspects of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in employment.
The “original, foundational” core of Title VII, Justice Kennedy wrote, prohibits intentional discrimination against individuals on the basis of race — “disparate treatment,” in the legal jargon. But the law also prohibits some seemingly neutral practices that have a “disparate impact” on members of racial groups.
Many of the plaintiffs in the case — 18 white firefighters, one of them Hispanic — studied intensively for the test, giving up second jobs and missing family celebrations. The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, who is dyslexic, said he studied for 8 to 13 hours a day, hiring an acquaintance to tape-record the study materials.
New Haven argued that it had acted in good faith in throwing out the exam results, fearing a disparate-impact suit from minority firefighters.
That was not enough, Justice Kennedy wrote. Indeed, allowing “employers to discard the results of lawful and beneficial promotional exams even when there is little if any evidence of disparate-impact discrimination,” he wrote, “would amount to a de facto quota system.”
But the majority did not rule out consideration of disparate impact altogether. Employers may consider potential racial impact “during the test-design stage,” Justice Kennedy wrote.
And, in “certain, narrow circumstances” after tests are given, he continued, employers may discard the results if they can demonstrate “a strong basis in evidence” that using the results would cause them to lose a disparate-impact suit.
That heightened standard, Justice Kennedy wrote, requires employers to show that the tests were not relevant to the jobs at issue or that other “equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available.”

Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30scotus.html?ref=us

Ruling Offers Little Guidance on Fair Hiring

The New York Times
Published: June 29, 2009

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

In ruling for a group of white firefighters in New Haven on Monday, the Supreme Court tried to address a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t quandary for many cities and other employers: what they should do when an employment test yields results that overwhelmingly favor whites.
But many legal experts said that instead of setting forth clear new rules, the court’s decision left things as muddled as ever for the nation’s employers — and seemed to ensure much more litigation over the explosive issue of employment discrimination.
“We don’t see clear, bright-line guidance here,” said Lars Etzkorn, a program director with the National League of Cities. “This is going to be good for employment lawyers.”
The 5-to-4 ruling applies largely to public-sector hiring and to civil service exams, but could also affect private employers that use tests or other screening methods. The court said that if an employer used a hiring or promotion test, it generally had to accept the test’s results — unless the employer had strong evidence the test was flawed and improperly favored a particular group.
With the court’s ruling making it harder for cities and other employers to throw out tests they conclude are unfair, employers are expected to work harder to make sure their written tests — indeed their entire selection process — are fair.
“The ruling gives employers less flexibility to change the selection process once it’s established,” said Katharine Parker, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose who is chairwoman of the Labor and Employment Committee of the New York City Bar Association. “As a result, employers will want to try to establish bulletproof selection criteria.”
Some may abandon written tests altogether.
To avoid charges of discrimination, many cities have already been moving away from such tests in favor of other methods of hiring and promoting employees in places like fire and police departments. They say written tests are often not the best way to determine who can perform best.
In New Haven, city officials, having concluded that their written test was flawed, said there was another, trusted method to select firefighting lieutenants and captains that posed less of a disadvantage to blacks and Hispanics. That method relies largely on assessment centers where applicants are evaluated in simulated real-life situations to see how they would handle them.
Supporters of the idea say assessment centers do far better than written exams in measuring leadership and communications skills and an applicant’s ability to handle emergencies.

Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30impact.html?_r=1&hp

Polling Shows Support For Affirmative Action

CBS News Blogs
June 29, 2009 2:18 PM

The Supreme Court today ruled in favor of white firefighters in the closely watched New Haven, Conn., case, finding that they were unfairly denied promotion. With that in mind, we took a look at recent polling on the public's opinion about affirmation action, which shows that slightly more Americans favor than oppose affirmative action generally. In this particular case, the group of white firefighters, the plaintiffs, believed they were discriminated against when the city of New Haven threw out the results of an exam because too few minorities scored high enough. A CBS News/New York Times Poll, conducted June 12-16, found 50 percent in favor of programs that make special efforts to help minorities get ahead, with 41 percent opposed. For over a decade more Americans have favored affirmative action programs than opposed them.

Full Story: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5122472.shtml

Missouri Judge Strike Down Affirmative Action (Amendment)

KSPR (ABC)
By Brad Belote
Story Created: Jun 26, 2009
Story Updated: Jun 26, 2009

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - A state judge has struck down a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to ban many affirmativeaction programs in Missouri.
Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said in a ruling Friday that the secretary of state's office should have rejectedthe proposed initiative because of a technical flaw in how it was drafted.

Full Story: http://www.kspr.com/news/local/49225182.html

Black, Hispanic firefighters gather to express unity

New Haven Register
June 25, 2009

NEW HAVEN — A group of black and Hispanic firefighters and community leaders, who say they face common challenges but sometimes follow divergent paths, stood together in a show of unity Wednesday at a symbolic location in a melting-pot neighborhood.The announcement was what they called a newfound common ground between the two racial groups and an era of better collaboration, forged during a recent series of meetings mediated by the NAACP aimed at “healing,” said James Rawlings, president of New Haven’s NAACP branch.“We face a lot of things together as minorities, and for us, being divided and separate is not a good thing,” said firefighter Terry Rountree, vice president of the New Haven Firebird Society, a fraternal organization of black firefighters. “And from this day forth, hopefully, we can work together and just serve the city better in certain issues that we both deal with as minorities on the Fire Department.”The groups gathered in advance of a Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, a New Haven case that potentially could change the landscape of hiring and promotional practices in the public sector when it comes to race.Regardless of the outcome, Alderman Jorge Perez, a prominent leader in the Hispanic community, said, “We don’t want to let any one issue separate us.“We should not let anything, including the Ricci case, come between the two communities. We have much in common.”A small crowd turned out despite the rain in Fair Haven, a community with a large Hispanic population, in front of a memorial for black soldiers from the 29th Infantry Regiment who fought for the Union in the Civil War.Rawlings called it a “coming together as one group, relative to the kinds of civil rights issues that we have fought collaboratively over the many, many, many years.”At least part of the friction appears to have been rooted in the different positions two fraternal organizations representing blacks and Hispanics took in the Ricci case, which centers on two civil service exams that were thrown out in 2004 because not enough blacks scored high enough to be promoted. The city lobbied the Civil Service Commission to discard the results because they appeared to violate federal law barring disparate impact on any racial group.From the beginning, the Firebirds adamantly and vocally supported the city’s position.The New Haven Hispanic Firefighters Association, meanwhile, has been careful to remain neutral, although the International Association of Hispanic Firefighters, of which the NHHFA is a chapter, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court supporting the city.New Haven Firefighter Rene Cordova explained that he founded the NHHFA as a service organization, not a political one, and while he attended Wednesday’s event, he steered clear of the disputed tests. He did agree with the call for unity, and said it should transcend race to include all firefighters on the department.The handful of meetings between the two groups, along with the NAACP and Ronald Morales of the IAHFF, occurred over the last few months.It bothered Lt. Gary Tinney, a Firebird, that the media focused on the African-American position in the Ricci case, when the IAHFF filed a Supreme Court brief taking the same stance.Employment lawsuits the Firebirds filed and won in New Haven have benefited all minorities, not just African Americans, he said.“We had to find a way to communicate better,” Tinney said. “We were being put against each other and it shouldn’t have been the case, because the issues that affect them are the same issues that affect us.”The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule within days in the case brought by one Hispanic and 19 white firefighters who claim the city violated their civil rights by throwing out the tests.Morales said Wednesday that the show of unity was important, since blacks and Hispanics face shared challenges in a profession that he says is still dominated by a “good old boy” network that stifles opportunity for all minorities.

Full Story: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/06/25/news/new_haven/a1_--_unity.txt

SIMULA TO PAY $110,000 TO SETTLE EEOC GENDER, EQUAL PAY AND RETALIATION CASE

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-17-09
Settlement With Military Contractor Provides Compensation and Training

PHOENIX -- A Phoenix-based international military contractor will pay $110,000 and furnish other relief to settle lawsuit charging a sex and age discrimination and unlawful retaliation filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC’s suit (Case No. 2:07-CV-01656-PHX-ECV) in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona charged that Simula, Inc. discriminated against temporary employees Margaret Chavez, Laura Box, and Christine Hanson by paying them less than male employees who performed the same job duties and not making them permanent employees. The EEOC also charged that Simula discriminated against Chavez on the basis of her age and ended Box’s temporary employment in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment.
Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit employment discrimination based on age, race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy or sexual harassment) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation.
In addition to paying $110,000, the consent decree settling the suit requires Simula to provide training and other relief aimed at educating its employees about laws prohibiting sex discrimination, age discrimination and retaliation.
“Employers cannot take advantage of temporary employees by denying them a work environment free of gender and age discrimination and retaliation,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Federal law protects both permanent and temporary employees from discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.”
EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill said, “As more companies choose temporary labor to fill their staffing needs, it is important for both those companies and employment agencies to be aware of their obligations to prevent discrimination and appropriately respond to allegations.”
Chester V. Bailey, District Director of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, added, “We will continue to vigorously pursue our mission of fighting employment discrimination on all fronts.”
Simula performs military contracting work such as packing parachutes and assembling body armor.
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.

Work-Site Enforcement Official Wants to Work With Employers

Workforce Management
June 17, 2009

In a speech, new Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement John Morton defends E-Verify, saying that it instantly confirms 97 percent of queries. But he acknowledges that the 3 percent rejection rate, in addition to the detection of unauthorized workers, could signal problems with the system.

While cracking down on companies that flout immigration laws, the Obama administration wants to extend simultaneously a hand of friendship to those playing by the rules, according to the newly appointed official in charge of work-site enforcement.
John Morton, assistant secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security, reiterated in a speech Tuesday, June 16, in Arlington, Virginia, the administration’s policy of pursuing criminal prosecutions against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.
But Morton, who has been on the job for four weeks, also said that he wants to work with companies that are fastidious about compliance.
“I want employers to view ICE as a true partner to find ways to stay within the law,” he said in a speech at an American Council on International Personnel conference. “As we move forward, I hope we have a much better relationship.”
A source of tension between employers and the Department of Homeland Security is an electronic employment verification system called E-Verify. About 128,000 employers have voluntarily signed up to use the mechanism, which checks new-hire information against DHS and Social Security databases.
But many employer groups, including the American Council on International Personnel, have criticized E-Verify, saying it is inaccurate, inefficient and unable to detect identity theft. The HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce has endorsed legislation that would institute an alternative electronic verification system.
Morton defended E-Verify, saying that it instantly confirms 97 percent of queries. But he acknowledged that the 3 percent rejection rate, in addition to the detection of unauthorized workers, could signal problems with the system.
“There are a lot of people who are abundantly aware of the criticisms,” Morton said. “They are trying to address them. There is a commitment to getting E-Verify right. We think E-Verify, while recognizing it has some issues, is a good working model.”

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/48/96.php

Block on affirmative action headed to ballot (Arizona)

East Valley Tribune.com
Tuesday, Jun 23, 2009 4:51 am

On a 17-11 vote the Senate gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination by government on the basis of race or sex. The measure, which already has been approved by the House, now goes on the 2010 ballot.
It will be the first time Arizonans get to vote on the issue. A similar initiative drive in 2008 failed when backers did not get enough signatures.
But Californian Ward Connerly, who helped craft this measure, said that does not mean Arizonans don't want the language in the state constitution.
He said it reflected instead on the difficulties in getting measures on the ballot. And Connerly said the fact that other issues managed to qualify -- and some actually were approved -- is irrelevant.
The measure is aimed at any law, rule or regulation that would give any group preference in public employment, contracting or education. These range from admissions to the state's two publicly funded law schools to the set-aside and bid preferences offered by Tucson for minority-owned businesses.
"It is unconscionable that we are allowing government to discriminate in these areas,'' said Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park. "That's not equal treatment.''
Connerly, who pushed through a similar measure in his home state in 1996, said it "sets the tone that government should not be discriminating against its citizens or granting anyone preferential treatment.''

Full Story: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/140852

Challenges to SAT Are Cited as Way to Fight Bans on Race-Conscious Admissions

The Chronicle of Higher Education
News Blog
June 17, 2009

A prominent civil-rights lawyer has suggested in a recently published analysis that the next legal challenges to state bans on public colleges’ use of race-conscious admissions policies could come in the form of attacks on the institutions’ reliance on the SAT.
In an article published in the latest issue of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Kimberly West-Faulcon, a professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former western regional director for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, argues that federal law actually requires public colleges to disregard state bans on their consideration of race in admissions if doing so is necessary to remedy unjustified racial gaps in admissions rates. If it can be shown that public colleges are relying on the SAT more than educationally necessary and such overreliance has the effect of causing them to discriminate against minority applicants, then their use of race-conscious admissions can be seen as a legally justified remedy to the problem, she says.
Ms. West-Faulcon hinges her argument on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has been interpreted by the U.S. Education Department has prohibiting colleges from using selection criteria that have the effect of discriminating against applicants based on race. Although she stops short of calling the SAT racially discriminatory, she says some public colleges in California and Washington State may be relying on it more than necessary, and that reliance has contributed to racial gaps in their admissions rates in the years since voters in those states adopted bans on the use of racial preferences by public colleges and other state and local agencies.

Full Blog: http://chronicle.com/news/article/6656/challenges-to-sat-are-cited-as-way-to-fight-bans-on-race-conscious-admissions?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

This Week in Civil Rights History: Title IX Becomes Law

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
June 22, 2009 - Posted by Lauren McGlothlin

This week we commemorate the 37th anniversary of the enactment of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which banned gender discrimination from all education programs and extracurricular activities in federally funded schools.
While the law did not originally make any reference to athletics, it is famous for altering schools' athletic policies to increase female participation in sports and establish gender equality in athletic budgets and competitions. Before the law passed in 1972, girls made up only 7 percent of high school sports participants. Now, more than 40 percent of high school athletes are female, according to data from the National Federation of State High School Associations.
Title IX has also dramatically improved educational opportunities for women and increased their participation in higher education. Before the law passed, 42 percent of college students were women. During the 2003-2004 school year, women composed 57 percent of the students in universities and colleges. It also has become easier for women to assume higher-skilled positions in their occupational fields, such as corporate executives, politicians, and college presidents.

Full Story: http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2009/06/451-title-ix.html

Supreme Court Ruling Leaves in Place Core Provision of the Voting Rights Act

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
naacpldf.org email
June 22nd, 2009

Supreme Court Ruling Leaves in Place Core Provision of the Voting Rights Act

(New York, NY) - Today, the Supreme Court in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5, the core provision of the Voting Rights Act. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court recognized that "[t]he historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable." Today's ruling, which was joined by seven other Justices, recognizes Section 5's critical importance in addressing voting discrimination faced by citizens throughout our country. "The entire thrust of LDF's argument was that Section 5 remains critical to our democracy and, however grudgingly, the Court acknowledges that in its opinion today. In an unusually harmonious opinion, today's decision upholds the constitutionality of an essential core protection in our democracy," said John Payton, LDF Director-Counsel. Payton observed that "Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act protects and shields the rights of minority voters from discrimination. Section 5 has long been symbolic of our nation's long and unsteady march toward greater political equality. Without its protections, our nation would unnecessarily face the grave risk of significant backsliding and retrenchment in the fragile gains that have been made." The Court's ruling today ensures that minority voters will continue to have the safeguards provided by the Section 5 preclearance process. The Court expanded the number of places that can seek to "bailout" or exempt themselves from preclearance. However, no Section 5-covered jurisdiction can do so without demonstrating a clean bill of health for a ten-year period. The bailout provision has proven workable and achievable for those jurisdictions that have sought it. It remains to be seen how the Court's interpretation of the bailout provision will impact enforcement of Section 5. If, for any reason, today's ruling renders Section 5 unworkable in the future, Congress could always amend the statute."The utility district brought this case to tear out the heart of the Voting Rights Act. Today, it failed. The Voting Rights Act remains one of Congress's greatest legacies," said Debo P. Adegbile, LDF Director of Litigation, who argued the case on behalf of Appellee-Intervenors.

Clinton: Push for Racial Equality Far From Over

Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by DAN SEWELL, Associated Press Writer
Jun 22, 2009, 08:57
CINCINNATI

The push for racial equality is far from over, in sports and in everyday life, former President Bill Clinton told a crowd at Major League Baseball's Beacon Awards on Saturday, part of MLB’s Civil Rights Game.
Clinton, who as president took part in baseball's ceremony retiring Jackie Robinson's No. 42 uniform number in 1997, spoke at a luncheon honoring Hall of Famer Hank Aaron, Muhammad Ali, and entertainer Bill Cosby for the trio’s contributions to civil rights and charitable works.
The former president told the crowd that, despite the election of Barack Obama as president, problems remain that disproportionately hit minorities. Clinton cited unemployment, the mortgage crisis, the high cost of college, and access to health care among continuing issues.
“A lot of people might be tempted to believe that the struggle which both produced these three giants of sports and comedy and gave them the power to help so many others, that struggle for racial equality is over,” Clinton said.

"But I really came here to say, if you want to honor Hank Aaron and Muhammad Ali and Bill Cosby, you must first recognize that this struggle is nowhere near over," he said.
The luncheon was among events leading to Saturday night's first regular-season Civil Rights Game, between the Chicago White Sox and Cincinnati Reds.
Ali, whose long battle with Parkinson's disease has limited his physical activity, remained seated as fellow former boxing champion Sugar Ray Leonard presented him his award. Ali looked it over as his wife, Lonnie, spoke on his behalf.
Cosby had the crowd roaring during his acceptance speech and urged the audience to make sure new generations know what Ali, Aaron and others had to overcome to be successful, and that there is more to be overcome.
“This is not a time to rest,” Cosby said.

Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12662.shtml

Voting rights provision ruled unconstitutional

CNN.COM
By Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer

• Story Highlights:
  High court tosses key enforcement tool in Voting Rights Act
  Decision avoided larger issue of federal government oversight
  Ruling gives states, communities more power to challenge "preclearance"
  Texas district eligible to "become exempt from federal oversight"
  

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court compromised Monday in a major voting rights case, finding that a powerful enforcement tool in the landmark Voting Rights Act was being applied too broadly.
However, the decision avoided the larger issue of whether the federal government should continue to have oversight to ensure local areas are free of voter discrimination.
By a unanimous vote, the justices allowed states and local communities more power to challenge the "preclearance" provision of the 1965 law. That provision provides continuing federal control over election practices in 16 states, based on past discrimination against minority voters.
Other states are not covered by the provision even if they, too, might discriminate against minority voters.
"Things have changed in the South. Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements.
"The Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs."
The 9-0 vote reflects the consensus the justices reached, putting aside for now the larger, more difficult questions on race and discrimination.
At issue is whether in 2006, Congress properly extended the law -- whose Section 5 mandates that the covered states get advance approval of changes in how their elections are conducted -- or whether the country has made enough progress on racial equality to make continued federal oversight essentially unnecessary.
The case involves a small homeowners association board outside Austin, Texas. In 2003, residents of the Canyon Creek planned community sought to move their polling place to an elementary school that is the neighborhood's polling place for all other elections. Such a move required federal approval under Section 5.
The court's ruling makes the Texas district eligible to "bail out," or become exempt from federal oversight. But it does so without resolving the larger constitutional questions of when race-based solutions can be used to remedy past and present discrimination. Such a narrow ruling upholds the law, for now.
But Roberts noted in his ruling that the preclearance provision raises "serious constitutional questions." And he added that it "represents an intrusion into areas of state and local responsibility that is unfamiliar to our federal system."
Backed by a group of conservative activists, Canyon Creek launched a direct challenge to the law's "preclearance" provision, arguing that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be claimed that racial discrimination no longer exists.
Civil rights groups say Section 5 has proved to be an important tool to protect minority voters from local governments that could set unfair or unconstitutional barriers to the polls. If it is ruled unconstitutional, they warned the justices, the very power and effect of the entire Voting Rights Act would crumble.

Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/22/scotus.voting.rights/index.html

WILLAMETTE TREE WHOLESALE SUED BY EEOC FOR SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT, RETALIATION

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-18-09

Latina Workers at Oregon Nursery Sexually Harassed, Threatened, and One Woman Repeatedly Raped, Federal Agency Charges

SEATTLE — A Molalla, Ore., nursery violated federal law when it allowed female employees to be severely sexually harassed and retaliated against the women and male co-workers after they reported the harassment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today. This is the agency’s third such case against Oregon agricultural employers. Last October, the EEOC filed lawsuits against Scheimer Farms of Nyassa, Ore., and against Wilcox Farms, Inc., and Wilcox Dairy Farms Group in Aurora, Ore.
The EEOC’s suit charges that sexual harassment and retaliation occurred at the Molalla, Ore., facility of Willamette Tree Wholesale, which operates 140 acres of retail nursery farmland, including a garden supply store and business office. According to the federal agency’s investigation, one worker, a 38-year-old Latina, was taken to remote areas of the farm by the company foreman and raped repeatedly over several months. In addition to threatening her with termination and loss of needed income, the harasser physically coerced her with pruning shears, and made threats against her life as well as against her family. Ultimately, when she refused to be sexually assaulted yet again, she was fired.
Another Latina co-worker, age 35, faced daily sexual innuendos and propositions for sex as well as grabbing and touching. When she and her husband, who also worked there, reported sexual harassment by a crew leader, Willamette Tree failed to investigate or respond to their complaint. The EEOC alleges that the couple and her brother were terminated in retaliation for having reported and opposed sexual harassment.
“All sexual harassment isunacceptable, but what happened hereis unspeakable,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “This shows how dangerous a situation can become when employers are hostile to workers' rights andsexual harassment goes unchecked. There simply is no excuse for any employer tolerating this sort of worker abuse, and enough is enough. The EEOCis going to be focusing more and more on finding new and better ways to reach the most vulnerable of discrimination victims, like these farm workers, and to halt this kind of horrific mistreatment."
Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (EEOC v. Willamette Tree Wholesale, Inc. (CV-09-690-PK) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court. The workers will be represented in the lawsuit by the Oregon Law Center, which brought the case to the EEOC’s attention. The EEOC seeks monetary damages on behalf of the workers, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of notices at the work site, and other injunctive relief.
EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “From California, where the fields were called ‘field de calzon’ (or ‘field of panties’) because so many supervisors raped women there, to Florida, where female farm workers call them ‘The Green Motel,’ and throughout the country, we have found women working in agriculture are often particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment. We hope this third Oregon lawsuit will send notice to employers in this industry to stop predatory sexual behavior and abuses of supervisor power.”EEOC District Director Michael Baldonado noted, “Our investigation found that sexual harassment at Willamette Tree was widespread, tolerated, expected, and a condition of employment.Instead of investigating reports of sexual harassment and taking action to stop or prevent it, these employers ignored repeated signs of harassment and blamed the victims. We hope this lawsuit will encourage workers to be able to step forward about discrimination without fear of losing their jobs.”
Workers who suffered sexual harassment at Willamette Tree Wholesale should contact the EEOC to determine if they qualify to be part of the class: contact Carmen Flores at (206) 220-6853.
In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment on a jury verdict of over $1,000,000 in favor of the EEOC and farm worker Olivia Tamayo (no relation to William Tamayo) in a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against Coalinga, Calif.-based Harris Farms, one of the largest integrated farming operations in the Central San Joaquin Valley.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Sotomayor and Our Future

Inside Higher Ed
June 22, 2009
By Sarita E. Brown

Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination marks a historic occasion in America. Assuming she is confirmed, being the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court will cause enormous cultural ripple effects. Just as the aspiration to become president became more authentic for black children who witnessed Barack Obama’s election, Sotomayor’s confirmation will provide inspiration for young Latinos to dream big. But we must tread lightly.
Many try to use Obama’s election to declare the country to be in a “post-racial era” – a fact apparently confirmed by the election of a black man, proving that racism and discrimination are behind us. If we’re not careful, Sotomayor’s confirmation could be used by some as evidence that the educational system is fine and provides all with equal opportunity to attain the American dream.
The reality, of course, is more complex.
Public discourse over the meaning of Sotomayor’s nomination has in recent weeks become a convenient vehicle for some to debate affirmative action. This debate cuts two ways. While some use Sotomayor's nomination to claim we have leveled the playing field and reached a post-racial era, there is also a vocal contingent accusing her of being racist and of being too pro-affirmative action. The fervor caused by her statements about the contributions of a "wise Latina," or the troubling lack of Latino faculty members in her own education is a potent reminder of how unwilling we all are to engage in a constructive discussion about the role and significance of race and ethnicity in American society. I plan to join this debate and make the case in a future essay about the utility of affirmative action policies and practices. We must be willing to engage in real discussions about how race and ethnicity can describe us, not divide us.
The Latino population in the United States -- Mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Cuban, Central American and others -- is the youngest and fastest growing segment of an increasingly diverse United States. But we are still disproportionately poor and undereducated. Nowhere is the division between Latinos and other ethnic groups starker than when it comes to achievement in higher education. Research, as well as personal experience, shows that race and ethnicity do matter. In fact, paying attention to differences while working to engage and serve all Americans is the hallmark of the most effective higher education reform efforts. But while our country has witnessed a steady increase in college participation rates for Latino students, up almost 25 percent between 2000 and 2004 according to the U.S. Department of Education, completion rates for Latino students have barely changed in three decades.
That’s not due to lack of desire: A recent survey sponsored by Oppenheimer Funds Inc., "College Within Reach," shows that Hispanic Americans are strongly committed to a college education as a part of fulfilling the America dream. In fact, 61 percent of Hispanic parents agreed that Obama's rise to the presidency "proves that a good education makes anything possible." In a floundering economy, however, only a small percentage is able to save up enough to make that dream a reality.
Sotomayor, who from humble beginnings in the South Bronx went on to excel at Princeton University as an undergraduate and at Yale University’s law school, is an extraordinary striver. She will be, and should be, an inspiration for young Latinos and Latinas -- in fact, for all young people. She is exceptional and the exception. We must not allow recognition of her achievements to mask the challenges faced by Latinos across this country for whom an Ivy League education is out of reach.
Nor should she be attacked for being mindful of the range of unique experience she brings to the Supreme Court as a Latina. Society is strengthened when leadership in the White House and state houses, in corporate boardrooms and federal and state courtrooms, and on campuses and in classrooms more fully reflects and acknowledges the challenges of the least well served of our population.
The opportunity for America lies in harnessing the potential of our young Latino population and helping them – and as a result, the nation – to thrive. This is not simply an issue of good will but a matter of necessity. Today, 37 percent of the more than 40 million Latinos in this country are under 20 years of age. By 2020, Latinos will make up 22 percent of the nation’s college-age population, according to demographic estimates today. The critical question is whether Latinos will actually reach college and, once there, succeed.

Full Comment: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/06/22/brown

Senate Backs Apology for Slavery

The Washington Post
Resolution Specifies That It Cannot Be Used in Reparations Cases
By Krissah Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 19, 2009

The Senate unanimously passed a resolution yesterday apologizing for slavery, making way for a joint congressional resolution and the latest attempt by the federal government to take responsibility for 2 1/2 centuries of slavery.
"You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), lead sponsor of the resolution, said after the unanimous-consent vote. "It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."
The Senate's apology follows a similar apology passed last year by the House. One key difference is that the Senate version explicitly deals with the long-simmering issue of whether slavery descendants are entitled to reparations, saying that the resolution cannot be used in support of claims for restitution. The House is expected to revisit the issue next week to conform its resolution to the Senate version.
Harkin, who called the Senate's vote an "important and significant milestone," said he wanted the resolution passed yesterday to closely coincide with Juneteenth, a holiday first celebrated by former slaves to mark their emancipation.
This recent willingness to deal with the nation's difficult racial history has come about in part because of President Obama's election, said Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.), who began pushing for an apology more than a decade ago when he was a state senator and pronounced himself "pleased" with the Senate vote.
Still, Cohen said, "there are going to be African Americans who think that [the apology] is not reparations, and it's not action, and there are going to be Caucasians who say, 'Get over it.' . . . I look at it as something that makes people think."

Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803877_pf.html

UC Davis settles lawsuit over women's sports

The Sacramento Bee
hsangree@sacbee.com
Published Thursday, Jun. 18, 2009

Three students who filed a class-action lawsuit against the University of California, Davis, claiming the university provided insufficient opportunities for female athletes, have agreed to settle their case, UC Davis officials announced Wednesday.
The settlement, which is still subject to a judge's approval, will provide more opportunities for women at UC Davis to play intercollegiate sports, including the creation of a varsity field-hockey team for women this year.
"I know so many excited women who are going to be able to participate, so I'm really happy for them," said plaintiff Kelsey Brust, a 21-year-old student majoring in animal science who has played field hockey at the club level.
"I'm really proud of UC Davis," said Brust, who won't be able to play on the varsity team this fall because of other commitments.
Noreen Farrell, a San Francisco lawyer with Equal Rights Advocates and lead attorney on the case, said she, too, was pleased with the settlement.
The case, filed in 2007, claimed the university provided women, who make up a majority of students at UC Davis, with disproportionately few opportunities to play varsity sports.
Another lawsuit filed against the university in 2003 on behalf of four female wrestlers was dismissed by a federal judge in Sacramento in April 2008. U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. found the plaintiffs had failed to give the university sufficient notice of their broad legal claim.

Full Story: http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1956516.html

Apologizing For The Enslavement and Racial Segregation of African-Americans

The U.S. Senate passed a resolution apologizing for slavery, June 18, 2009. See the text below:

Whereas the legacy of African-Americans is interwoven with the very fabric of the democracy and freedom of the United States; (Ordered Held at Senate Desk after being Received from House )
SCON 26 HDS
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. CON. RES. 26
Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 11, 2009
Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BOND, and Mr. COCHRAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was ordered held at the desk
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans.
Whereas, during the history of the Nation, the United States has grown into a symbol of democracy and freedom around the world;
Whereas the legacy of African-Americans is interwoven with the very fabric of the democracy and freedom of the United States;
Whereas millions of Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and the 13 American colonies from 1619 through 1865;
Whereas Africans forced into slavery were brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized, and subjected to the indignity of being stripped of their names and heritage;
Whereas many enslaved families were torn apart after family members were sold separately;
Whereas the system of slavery and the visceral racism against people of African descent upon which it depended became enmeshed in the social fabric of the United States;
Whereas slavery was not officially abolished until the ratification of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 1865, after the end of the Civil War;
Whereas after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African-Americans soon saw the fleeting political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction eviscerated by virulent racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid system of officially sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life;
Whereas the system of de jure racial segregation known as `Jim Crow', which arose in certain parts of the United States after the Civil War to create separate and unequal societies for Whites and African-Americans, was a direct result of the racism against people of African descent that was engendered by slavery;
Whereas the system of Jim Crow laws officially existed until the 1960s--a century after the official end of slavery in the United States--until Congress took action to end it, but the vestiges of Jim Crow continue to this day;
Whereas African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow laws--long after both systems were formally abolished--through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty;
Whereas the story of the enslavement and de jure segregation of African-Americans and the dehumanizing atrocities committed against them should not be purged from or minimized in the telling of the history of the United States;
Whereas those African-Americans who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws, and their descendants, exemplify the strength of the human character and provide a model of courage, commitment, and perseverance;
Whereas, on July 8, 2003, during a trip to Goree Island, Senegal, a former slave port, President George W. Bush acknowledged the continuing legacy of slavery in life in the United States and the need to confront that legacy, when he stated that slavery `was . . . one of the greatest crimes of history . . . The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times. But however long the journey, our destiny is set: liberty and justice for all.';
Whereas President Bill Clinton also acknowledged the deep-seated problems caused by the continuing legacy of racism against African-Americans that began with slavery, when he initiated a national dialogue about race;
Whereas an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed and a formal apology to African-Americans will help bind the wounds of the Nation that are rooted in slavery and can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help the people of the United States understand the past and honor the history of all people of the United States;
Whereas the legislatures of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the States of Alabama, Florida, Maryland, and North Carolina have taken the lead in adopting resolutions officially expressing appropriate remorse for slavery, and other State legislatures are considering similar resolutions; and
Whereas it is important for the people of the United States, who legally recognized slavery through the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to make a formal apology for slavery and for its successor, Jim Crow, so they can move forward and seek reconciliation, justice, and harmony for all people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the sense of the Congress is the following:
(1) APOLOGY FOR THE ENSLAVEMENT AND SEGREGATION OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS- The Congress--
(A) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws;
(B) apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws; and
(C) expresses its recommitment to the principle that all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and calls on all people of the United States to work toward eliminating racial prejudices, injustices, and discrimination from our society.
(2) DISCLAIMER- Nothing in this resolution--
(A) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or
(B) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111S36ref::

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE SETTLES EEOC RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-18-09
Driver is Given Damages and Sabbath Accommodations

MEMPHIS -- United Parcel Service (UPS) will offer monetary damages and religious accommodations to a 19-year employee at UPS’s Bartlett, Tenn., facility to resolve a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The lawsuit, EEOC v. UPS, Inc. (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02576 filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee), charged UPS violated federal law by refusing to accommodate the religious beliefs of one of its drivers and trying to force him to work past sundown on his Sabbath, which violates his tenets as a member of the United Church of God.
Religious discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandates that sincerely held religious beliefs of employees must be accommodated by employers as long as it does not cause an undue hardship on the company. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. UPS denied that it engaged in discrimination against the employee.
Under the terms of the three-year consent decree settling the suit, UPS will pay $23,500 to the employee as damages. UPS also agreed to maintain a policy which comports with Title VII in order to provide reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious beliefs. In addition, UPS must conduct training on the prevention of discrimination based on religion for all of its Bartlett managers. The employer is also enjoined from discriminating against employees by unlawfully denying religious accommodation and from unlawfully retaliating against employees who participated in this proceeding. UPS agreed to provide a variety of options to reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs, including allowing the employee to be relieved of overtime; to use accrued vacation days; to request personal holidays; to request unpaid leave when available; and to use allotted unexcused absences.
“Religious discrimination is not to be taken lightly,” said Faye Williams, the EEOC’s regional attorney for its Memphis District, which covers Tennessee, Arkansas and Northern Mississippi. “All employers must respond reasonably to an employee’s religious accommodation requests.”
According to company information, UPS, the world's largest package delivery company, delivers more than 15 million packages a day to 6.1 million customers in more than 200 countries and territories around the world. Since 2005, its operations include logistics and other transportation-related areas.
Religious discrimination charge filings reported to EEOC offices nationwide have substantially increased from 1,388 in Fiscal Year 1992 to 3,273 in FY 2008.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

COMMISSION VOTES TO REVISE RULES TO CONFORM TO ADA AMENDMENTS ACT

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-17-09

New Regulations Would Make it Easier for People to Establish Disability Under ADA

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted today to revise its regulations to conform to changes made by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008, which would make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability.
The Commission voted 2-1 to adopt the rules changes, at a public meeting this morning at the agency’s Washington headquarters. The five-member body has two vacancies.
The rules changes approved today represent an initial stage in the regulatory process and must next go to the Office of Management and Budget for review, and to federal agencies pursuant to Executive Order 12067, without public comment.
“In approving these proposed regulations, the EEOC today is taking a significant step toward returning the ADA to the broad and strong civil rights statute that Congress originally intended it to be,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The proposed regulations will permit individuals with disabilities to participate to the fullest extent possible in the American workplace.”
Acting EEOC Vice Chair Christine M. Griffin said, “Today’s vote is historic. These regulations will serve to shift the focus of the courts from further narrowing the definition of disability and putting it back to where Congress intended when the ADA was enacted in 1990. Courts should now focus on whether discrimination based on disability is occurring in the workplace. The protections afforded by the ADA AA and these new regulations are important for all workers including our returning wounded warriors who certainly deserve the right to re-enter a workforce free of discrimination.”
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an antidiscrimination statute, was signed into law in July 1990. The EEOC is responsible for enforcing Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The statute requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants with disabilities—defined as people with mental or physical impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, persons with a record of a disability, or who, while not actually disabled, are regarded as disabled.
The ADA Amendments Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2009, makes important changes to the definition of the term "disability" by rejecting the holdings in several Supreme Court decisions and portions of EEOC's prior ADA regulations. The effect of these changes is to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability as defined by the ADA. The ADAAA emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.
The ADAAA also states that Congress expects the EEOC to revise its regulations to conform to changes made by Act, and expressly authorizes the EEOC to do so.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Court makes it harder to prove age discrimination

Associated Press
Jun 18, 2:51 PM EDT


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has made it harder to prove discrimination on the basis of age, ruling against an employee in his mid-50s who says he was demoted because of his age.
In a 5-4 decision Thursday written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court said a worker has to prove that age was the key factor in an employment decision, even if there is some evidence that age played a role. In some other discrimination lawsuits, the burden of proof shifts to the employer once a worker shows there is some reason to believe a decision was made for improper reasons.
Jack Gross had been a vice president of FBL Financial Services of West Des Moines, Iowa. But in 2001, he lost the title of vice president in a reorganization and two years later, some of his responsibilities were given to a colleague.
Gross sued under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and a jury agreed that his age was a motivating factor in his demotion. Gross was awarded $46,945 in lost compensation.
A federal appeals court in St. Louis overturned the verdict, however.
"We hold that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged adverse employment action," Thomas said in the high court's opinion. "The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in the decision."

Full Story: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_AGE_DISCRIMINATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

News Corp. Forms Diversity Council After Cartoon

Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by JESSE WASHINGTON,
AP National Writer
Jun 11, 2009, 09:34

News Corp. has agreed to form an external diversity council after meeting with civil rights groups about a New York Post cartoon that critics said likened President Barack Obama to a dead chimpanzee.

The company will form a "diversity community council" in New York City that will meet with senior company executives twice a year, NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said Wednesday. It also will include a statement of commitment to diversity in its annual report.

News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch published an apology in the Post soon after the cartoon appeared in February, but pressure for further action continued. Jealous called the cartoon an “invitation for assassination” and urged a boycott of the paper and the firing of the editor and cartoonist. The Rev. Al Sharpton asked the Federal Communications Commission to review policies allowing News Corp. to control multiple media outlets in the same market.

Representatives from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Sharpton's National Action Network, the National Urban League and 100 Black Men of America met with News Corp. executives on May 19.

Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12648.shtml

SCHOTT NORTH AMERICA, INC. TO PAY $1.45 MILLION TO SETTLE EEOC SEX BIAS SUIT

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-10-09

SCRANTON, PA. — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a major settlement of a sex discrimination lawsuit for $1,450,000 and significant equitable relief against Schott North America, a multinational developer and manufacturer of special glass and specialty materials, components and systems, based in Elmsford, N.Y.
The EEOC charged that Schott laid off women because of their sex after a company reorganization in October 2004 of its specialty glass plant in Duryea, Pa. Prior to the reorganization, glass production at the plant was generally divided into two parts, the “hot end” and the “cold end”; 95.3% of the hot-end workers were male and 76.6% of the cold-end workers were female.
As part of the reorganization, the company created a new position of “melting line operator” and used a “skills matrix” to determine who would obtain these new positions. The glass company laid off employees whom it did not select for the melting line operator position. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that the skills matrix system benefited male employees, did not accurately measure the skills truly needed to perform the melting line operator job and had an adverse impact on female applicants – who were selected for layoff at a significantly higher rate than male employees. The EEOC contended that six plaintiff intervenors and five class members were not selected for melting line operator positions and were laid off because of their sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said, “This significant settlement demonstrates the EEOC's commitment to securing meaningful relief for victims of systemic sex discrimination.”
In addition to the $1.45 million in monetary relief, the three-year consent decree provides substantial equitable relief, including: injunctive relief enjoining Schott from engaging in unlawful discrimination under Title VII or retaliation; annual anti-discrimination training of all supervisors and managers at the Duryea, Pa. facility; and the posting of a notice about the settlement.
“Companies must make hiring and layoff decisions based on the individual’s qualifications and abilities, and not because of gender,” said EEOC Philadelphia District Director Marie M. Tomasso, who oversaw the agency’s administrative investigation which preceded the litigation. “The EEOC will take action if a company reorganization has an adverse impact on women.”
The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 06-CV-1246) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court. Schott did not admit liability in the consent decree, which is pending judicial approval. Sean P. McDonough, of the Dougherty, Leventhal & Price law firm, and Pete Winebrake, of The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC, represented plaintiff intervenors in their private claims against Schott.
Judith O’Boyle, the supervisory trial attorney responsible for handling the litigation, noted, “We are pleased that the parties were able to resolve this matter and that Schott agreed to a variety of remedial measures designed to prevent problems in the future."
Karen McDonough investigated the charges of discrimination filed with the agency.
According to its web site, www.us.schott.com, “SCHOTT Corporation is the North American headquarters and holding company for the SCHOTT Group. With 16 divisions and subsidiaries in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, SCHOTT Corporation employs approximately 2,500 people for the manufacture and distribution of special glass and glass-related systems. The SCHOTT Group employs 17,300 people worldwide and has sales of approximately $3 billion.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

FEDERAL COURT ORDERS AARON BROTHERS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN EEOC INVESTIGATION

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-8-09

Art Supply Stores Must Provide National Statistical Data and Information Regarding Pay Disparity Allegations

LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Aaron Brothers, Inc. (Aaron Brothers) must provide nationwide statistical pay data, according to a ruling by U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz. The EEOC issued a subpoena during the course of a nationwide investigation into the company to determine if the retailer discriminated against female managers by paying them less than their male counterparts.
The EEOC filed its action (EEOC vs. Aaron Brothers Inc., et al, Case No. CV 07-5315 AHM (FMOx)) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California located in Los Angeles after the employer failed to fully comply with the EEOC’s investigatory subpoena.
In its decision, the court highlighted the “relatively low threshold for enforcing an administrative subpoena,” stating that the EEOC can request any information that is relevant and material to the investigation.
After acknowledging that the EEOC’s request for broad, nationwide data was relevant and material to its investigation, the court placed on the employer the “difficult burden of showing that the subpoena is overbroad or will place an undue burden on Aaron Brothers.” Because Aaron Brothers did not meet this difficult burden, the court ordered production of information for Aaron Brothers stores nationwide.
“This subpoena enforcement action makes clear that the EEOC will not back down when investigating claims of systemic compensation discrimination,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Anna Y. Park in Los Angeles. “The court properly ruled that the EEOC has the right to obtain nationwide compensation data to determine if a violation of federal law occurred.”
Aaron Brothers stores offer ready-made frames and mattes, art supplies, and custom framing services and operates more than 150 stores in about 10 states, mostly in Texas and the western United States.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Videos Reveal Sotomayor’s Positions on Affirmative Action and Other Issues

The New York Times
June 11, 2009
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as “a product of affirmative action” who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to “cultural biases” that are “built into testing.”
On another occasion, she aligned with conservatives who take a limited view of when international law can be enforced in American courts. But she criticized conservative objections to recent Supreme Court rulings that mention foreign law as being based on a “misunderstanding.”
Those comments were among a trove of videos dating back nearly 25 years that shed new light on Judge Sotomayor’s views. She provided the videos to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week as it prepares for her Supreme Court confirmation hearing next month.
The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an “affirmative action baby” whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstances.
“If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted,” she said on a panel of three female judges from New York who were discussing women in the judiciary. The video is dated “early 1990s” in Senate records.
Her comments came in the context of explaining why she thought it was “critical that we promote diversity” by appointing more women and members of minorities as judges, and they provoked objections among other panelists who pointed out that she had graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and been an editor on Yale’s law journal.
But Judge Sotomayor insisted that her test scores were sub-par — “though not so far off the mark that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.” Her scores have not been made public.
“With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates,” she said. “And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”

Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11judge.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Labor Department Hosts Prevailing Wage Conferences July 2009

The U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs are hosting a joint conference on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and on the Prevailing Wage. The conferences will take place in Washington, DC, on July 20 -22, 2009 (Session I) and July 22 -24, 2009 (Session II). The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs workshops on ARRA will address contractor and agency requirements under Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.

REGISTRATION

If you wish to attend, please email your name, title, organization, email address, telephone number, and select a session (1 and 2 are identical) to whdarra@dol.gov. There is no fee for attending this conference, however, space is limited. Upon receipt of this information DOL will advise you whether your request can be accommodated.

WHERE TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

For additional information regarding the Wage and Hour Division, visit Website at http://www.wagehour.dol.govor call the toll-free information helpline, available8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE(1-866-487-9243).

For more information, go to: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/recovery/ConferenceFlyerDC2009.pdf or the OFCCP website: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/

Americans Support Affirmative Actions Programs

June 4, 2009 (South Africa)

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States back the concept of affirmative action, according to a poll by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media released by the Associated Press. 56 per cent of respondents favour these programs for racial and ethnic minorities, and 63 per cent support programs for women.
Affirmative action programs provide preferential treatment based on race, gender, colour, ethnicity or national origin in areas such as public employment, education and contracts, in an effort to promote equal opportunity.
Supporters of affirmative action point out that some groups have been historically disadvantaged and require additional assistance, while opponents counter that the programs end up devaluing the achievements of minorities.
Last month, former South African president F. W. de Klerk questioned the use of affirmative action, saying, "To say, equal representation must now be implemented in the social world, the cultural world and the business world. That is, in my opinion, a total distortion of the Constitution. (...) It is, in my opinion, unbalanced and often unconstitutional. Affirmative action must be altered so that it is no longer racist."

Full Story and Opinion Poll Data:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/americans_support_affirmative_actions_programs/

UNITED AIRLINES SUED FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-4-09
EEOC Says Airline Failed to Provide Reasonable Accommodations for Disabled Workers

SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today sued Chicago-based global air carrier United Airlines for discriminating against a class of employees with disabilities by failing to provide job transfers to vacant positions, despite their qualifications, as a reasonable accommodation.
Lead class member Joe Boswell worked as an airline mechanic for United at the San Francisco Airport for over a decade before being diagnosed with a brain tumor, causing him to take leave and seek medical treatment. When Boswell returned to work at United, he could not be accommodated in his position as a mechanic, so he applied for a number of vacant positions for which he was qualified.
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Under the statute, reasonable accommodations specifically include reassignment to a vacant position. However, instead of providing such an accommodation to Boswell, the EEOC says United violated the ADA by rejecting him for all the positions he had applied for, even though he was qualified for those jobs. Boswell was eventually placed on extended, involuntary leave by United until he retired late last year.
“The EEOC is focused on eliminating widespread disability discrimination in employment wherever we find it,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Employers in every industry should know that their failure to comply with the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement will have legal consequences.”
Boswell said, “It made me feel useless to be rejected for job after job when I knew I was qualified to do the work I was applying for. United made it clear that they didn’t want to deal with me after I became disabled. I wanted to work, but they didn’t care.”
The EEOC says in the litigation that all of the class members shared similar experiences as Boswell: they became disabled during their employment with United, could not be accommodated in their current position, and were rejected by United for a vacant position for which they qualified. Other claimants were food service workers, airplane maintenance workers, ramp workers, flight attendants, and customer service representatives.
“We anticipate that numerous employees at United locations nationwide may have a claim in this systemic case,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William Tamayo. “The ADA clearly requires employers to make a reasonable accommodation when an employee can no longer perform the original job because of a disability. This requires placing disabled employees in vacant positions for which they qualify, rather than forcing them to go through an application process similar to an external applicant who never worked at the company.”
The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. United Airlines, Civil No. 09-2469-PJH). The suit seeks monetary damages on behalf of the affected class of employees, a court order to require the airline to change its policies to comply with the ADA, and ensuring the class members are reassigned to work in vacant jobs for which they are qualified.
EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado noted, “The EEOC investigation found that Boswell’s treatment was the rule, not the exception, at United Airlines. Employees with disabilities were placed on long-term leaves of absence and/or terminated despite the fact that they were willing, qualified and able to work. Such actions ignore the language and spirit of the ADA. Employees with disabilities can remain productive members of the work force, especially if employers fully comply with their duty under the law to provide reasonable accommodations.”
According to the company web site, United Airlines has almost 50,000 employees in every U.S. state and in many countries around the world. The air carrier operates air travel hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C. United is one of the largest international carriers based in the United States.
During Fiscal Year 2008, disability discrimination charge filings with the EEOC nationwide rose to 19,453 -- an increase of 10 percent from the prior fiscal year and the highest level in 14 years.The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.