FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES SUED FOR RACIAL HARASSMENT, THREATENING BLACK WORKER WITH NOOSE

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-3-09
EEOC Says Crom Companies Subjected African Americans to Racial Insults, Physical Abuse

MIAMI – The Crom Corporation and Crom Equip­ment Rentals violated federal law when they allowed the racial harassment of black employees, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today. The EEOC also says the Florida-based construction companies unlawfully suspended an African American employee for complaining about severe racial insults, threats and physical abuse.
According to the suit, a white employee at Crom’s Holly Hill, Fla., location locked a black coworker in a tool shed and then spray-painted the shed door with the word “Jail.” The EEOC said that the same white employee also put a hangman’s noose around the black employee’s neck, hung the noose in his work area, and threatened to decapitate him. Another African American employee was offended when he saw the noose hanging at the Holly Hill site. Crom was aware of the harassment but didn’t stop it, according to the suit. Instead, the EEOC said, Crom suspended the black worker after he complained about the noose and rewarded the white offender with a higher-paying position.
“It is shocking and sobering that such cruelty can still occur at an American workplace,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC will not falter in its quest to put an end to such injustice.”
Racial harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (EEOC v. The Crom Corporation, Case No. 1:09-cv-00128-SPM-AK) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
EEOC Miami District Director Jacqueline McNair said, “Even in 2009, nooses still make their way into work environments. The EEOC will vigorously prosecute cases with this sort of workplace terror.” EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Nora E. Curtin, added, “The nightmarish abuse endured in this case is appalling. The hangman's noose is a haunting symbol of racial hatred and must never be tolerated. Employers must take swift and meaningful action to punish those responsible for such outrageous conduct.”
Crom Corporation and Crom Equipment Rentals sell concrete water tanks and scaffolding and operate throughout Florida and in at least nine other states.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Federal Contractor rule delayed until September 8, 2009

The effective date of the final rule requiring certain federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify has been delayed until September 8, 2009.
The rule will only affect federal contractors who are awarded a new contract after September 8, 2009 that includes the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause (73 FR 67704).
Federal contractors may NOT use E-Verify to verify current employees until the rule becomes effective and they are awarded a contract that includes the FAR E-Verify Clause.
The new rule implements Executive Order 12989, as amended by President George W. Bush on June 6, 2008, directing federal agencies to require that federal contractors agree to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their employees. The amended Executive Order reinforces the policy, first announced in 1996, that the federal government does business with companies that have a legal workforce. This new rule requires federal contractors to agree, through language inserted into their federal contracts, to use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of all persons hired during a contract term, and to confirm the employment eligibility of federal contractors’ current employees who perform contract services for the federal government within the United States. You can read frequently asked questions about this new rule in the link below.

Frequently Asked Questions:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=cb2a535e0869d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD

USCIS Link:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD

HBCU Business School Deans Partner With GMAC to Boost Number of African American MBA Students

PR Newswire
United Business Media
News Release

MCLEAN, Va., June 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) and deans of the 36 Historically Black College and University (HBCU) business schools agreed today (June 5) to partner to better prepare African American students for both the GMAT exam and success in graduate management education.
President and CEO David A. Wilson, in his keynote address at the annual HBCU Deans Roundtable Summit in Atlanta, GA, noted significant increases in African American students taking the GMAT exam, which is owned and administered by GMAC and used for admission to more than 4,600 graduate management education programs around the world. He praised the business schools for their effort. The number of African American test takers has doubled in the past decade, with a 26 percent increase in just the past four years.
At the same time, Wilson noted, "The time has come for us to work together to increase the accessibility of the exam for African American students and to help you better prepare students for the test." Although many students do very well, Wilson said, the mean score is still 100 points below the mean score for all test takers.
"We can work together to make a change," he added. "Diverse candidates bring great value to schools and, ultimately, to the corporations, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations that hire them."
As part of this partnership, Wilson pledged fee waivers for each of the HBCU business schools to use at its discretion to make sure that no student is denied access to the exam for financial reasons. In addition, he gave each dean packages of test preparation materials, including copies of the new 12th edition Official GMAT Guide and GMAT Prep CDs. "You are uniquely positioned to prepare your students and we want you to have the materials to do it," he told the deans. "We want to work with you in every way we can."
"We look to the HBCUs to help us achieve the diversity in our program that benefits all of our graduate students," said Melvin T. Stith, dean, Whitman School of Management, Syracuse University.
Wilson also announced a cross-country tour of the GMAT Mobile Testing Center to HBCUs and Hispanic-Serving Institutions from October 2009 to May 2010. The 32-school bus tour will reach all U.S. based four-year HBCU and HSI members that are at least 40 miles from the nearest GMAT test center, thus further enhancing student accessibility.
The Graduate Management Admission Council (www.gmac.com) is a nonprofit education organization of leading graduate business schools worldwide dedicated to creating access to and disseminating information about graduate management education. GMAC is based in McLean, Virginia, and has a European office in London. The Council owns the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), used by approximately 4,600 graduate management programs at some 1,900 business schools around the world to assess applicants. The GMAT -- the only standardized test designed expressly for graduate business and management programs worldwide -- is currently available at more than 450 test centers in over 100 countries. More information about the GMAT is available at www.mba.com.
SOURCE Graduate Management Admission Council

http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/06-05-2009/0005039262&EDAT

Public Backs Affirmative Action, But Not Minority Preferences

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
June 2, 2009

With the Supreme Court expected to soon rule on a case involving job discrimination claims by white firefighters, and Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor's decision in a lower court ruling on the case drawing scrutiny there is renewed focus on public opinion about affirmative action programs and overall efforts to improve the position of minorities in this country. The public has generally been supportive of such efforts, but is decidedly opposed to the idea of providing preferential treatment to minorities.
In the most recent Pew Research Center values survey, released May 21, just 31% agreed that "we should make every effort to improve the position of blacks and minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment." More than twice as many (65%) disagreed with this statement. That balance of opinion has fluctuated only modestly through the 22-year history of the values survey.
The values survey revealed continuing racial differences in attitudes about this issue. Majorities of both African Americans (58%) and Hispanics (53%) favor preferential treatment to improve the position of blacks and other minorities; just 22% of whites agree. Divisions over this issue are mirrored in deep differences among Democratic groups. Among self-described Democrats and independents who "lean" Democratic, majorities of African Americans (60%) and Hispanics (57%) say every effort should be made to improve the position of minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment. By contrast, just 31% of white Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents favor blacks and other minorities getting preferential treatment, while 66% are opposed.
The opinions of white Democrats on this issue are closer to those of white Republicans than they are to those of non-white Democrats. Just 12% of white Republicans favor giving minorities preferential treatment to improve their condition.

Views of Affirmative Action
While the public rejects the use of preferential treatment to improve the position of minorities, in the past it has expressed broad support for affirmative action programs aimed at helping blacks and women gain access to better jobs and education.

In January 2007, 70% said they favored "affirmative action programs to help blacks, women and other minorities get better jobs and education," while 25% opposed these programs. Support for affirmative action programs had increased substantially from the mid-1990s; in August 1995, 58% favored affirmative action programs while 36% were opposed.
Notably, between 1995 and 2007 there was a sharp increase in the proportion of whites expressing support for affirmative action programs. In 2007, 65% of whites favored these programs, up from 53% a dozen years earlier. Support among African Americans, which was overwhelming in 1995 (94%), remained so in 2007 (93%).
Pew Research surveys have found far less support for affirmative action programs when they are described as giving preferences to African Americans. In 2007, as part of a major survey about public opinion about race relations, the Pew Reserch Center's Social & Demographic Trends project asked separate groups of respondents different questions about affirmative action programs intended to "overcome past discrimination."

Full Story Including Charts and Graphs: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1240/sotomayor-supreme-court-affirmative-action-minority-preferences

[SJW Comment: This report differs in tone compared with the article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Peter Schmidt, which is decidedly anti-affirmative action. http://chronicle.com/news/article/?id=6577 At least have some integrity and cover both sides of the issue, Chronicle. I was hoping that with a new, African-American publisher (See our blog), the Chronicle would be more balanced on this issue. No such luck yet.]

Are You Prepared to Deal With Expanded Anti-Retaliation Laws?

Workforce Week
Management
May 2009

The job of the human resources practitioner in dealing with the anti-retaliation provisions of the various federal employment laws continues to get a lot harder. Not only are the actions that constitute retaliation a lot more difficult to pinpoint, but the description of those that come within the proscriptions of the various anti-retaliation laws has now been expanded—most recently by a January 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision. By Mark Downey

Here’s the scenario: One of your employees has complained of being subjected to discriminatory treatment, and because you’re a good and conscientious employer, you’re doing the right thing: You immediately start to investigate that complaint. You meet with the employee making the complaint. You meet with the alleged perpetrator of the offense. You meet with the individuals that are said to be witnesses to the actions you’re investigating. Then, out of the blue, during an interview of one of the witnesses, that witness tells you a story. The story you are told, however, is not about the incident that you are investigating. Instead, you are told about an entirely different instance of what might be an unlawful employment action.
As you walk out of the meeting you ask yourself, “What just happened?”
According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s January decision in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, what just happened is that the individual you just interviewed has now participated in a protected activity. It may not be a typical complaint—the employee was not the one who came to HR and said, “My boss did this.” And the employee may not have even been the one to initiate the factual recitation—that is, the story was only told in response to questions by the investigator during the investigation process.
But the story told by the witness does constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice. As a result, that employee is now within the protections from retaliation under the various anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA and many other federal and state employment laws prohibiting retaliation.
The Crawford decision was not the only time that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII, the ADA and the ADEA have been expanded. While the anti-retaliation laws have always been viewed as a protection from retaliation for individuals who either oppose an unlawful employment practice or participate in an action to enforce the anti-discrimination laws, these laws do not stop there. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a violation of these anti-retaliation provisions occurs whenever the employer takes an action that would tend to dissuade a reasonable employee from making a complaint or from participating in an enforcement activity such as an investigation or other proceeding. What this means is that actions such as demotions, decisions not to promote, changing the employee’s job duties, discipline and terminations can all expose the employer to potential liability for violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII and the other federal employment laws. Retaliation is no longer just reserved for situations where the employee is demoted or fired.
With that decision in 2006 and the Supreme Court’s more recent decision in Crawford, holding that the anti-retaliation laws cover a person who simply provided information of unlawful activities in response to questioning by the employer, the application of the anti-retaliation provisions of the various federal laws is expanding.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/03/feature/26/42/84/index.html