Court upholds Calif. affirmative action ban

the Sacramento Bee
The Associated Press
Published: Monday, Apr. 2, 2012 - 11:25 am

LOS ANGELES -- A federal appeals court on Monday upheld California's ban on using race, ethnicity and gender in admitting students to public colleges and universities.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the state's landmark voter initiative, Proposition 209, does not violate students' constitutional rights.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/02/4385127/court-upholds-calif-affirmative.html#storylink=cpy

California Minorities Ask Court to Restore Affirmative Action in College Admissions

Fox News
Published February 14, 2012
Fox News Latino

SAN FRANCISCO – Attorneys for the plaintiffs in a case challenging California's ban on using affirmative action to determine admission into public colleges argued that race and ethnicity should be considered to improve diversity at the state's top campuses.

The plaintiffs want a federal appeals to overturn California's 15-year-old ban on affirmative action in college admissions, citing a steep drop in black, Latino and Native American students on campuses.


Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/02/14/california-affirmative-action-supporters-ask-court-to-overturn-ban-on/#ixzz1mNhkFqGq

Affirmative action suit gets Brown's support

San Francisco Gate
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 17, 2012

More than 15 years after California voters approved a ban on affirmative action based on race or gender preferences, a new challenge to Proposition 209 has reached a federal appeals court - and the challengers this time include Gov. Jerry Brown.

Prop. 209 "imposes unique political burdens on minorities" and violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, Brown's lawyers from the attorney general's office told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which will hear arguments Feb. 13.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/16/BAG01MQ7P3.DTL#ixzz1jk0MeSpW

Federal Judge Dismisses Texas A&M International Discrimination Suit

Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Eric Freedman , January 3, 2012

A federal judge in Houston has tossed out a civil rights lawsuit by an untenured faculty member who claimed his university was getting rid of Asian faculty members to replace them with Hispanics.

Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/article/16736/

Appeals Court Revives Political Bias Suit Against U. of Iowa

Inside Higher Ed

January 3, 2012 - 3:00am

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit last week revived a lawsuit against Carolyn Jones, a University of Iowa law professor who was dean at the time of the incidents in the suit, by a woman who says she was not hired for several faculty jobs because of her political views. The woman who sued, Teresa R. Wagner, is a conservative who has worked with an anti-abortion group.


Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/01/03/appeals-court-revives-political-bias-suit-against-u-iowa#ixzz1iPGgvu9C
Inside Higher Ed

White Savannah State football coach settles discrimination suit

The Augusta Chronicle
By Donald Heath
Morris News Service
Thursday, Dec. 1, 2011 7:19 AM

SAVANNAH, Ga. -- Former Savannah State football coach Robby Wells received compensation of $350,000, which included $110,000 to his attorneys, to settle his discrimination lawsuit against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia and SSU administrators. The Savannah Morning News learned details of the agreement after issuing a freedom of information request for documents on the case.

Full Story: http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2011-12-01/white-savannah-state-football-coach-settles-discrimination-suit

Civil Rights Groups Join Equal Justice Society in Brief Urging Court to Strike Down Anti-Equality Law in Michigan

Civil Rights Groups Join Equal Justice Society in Brief Urging Court to Strike Down Anti-Equality Law in Michigan
Equal Justice Society Press Release

Download a PDF of this release Download a PDF of the amicus brief

SAN FRANCISCO (November 3, 2011) - The Equal Justice Society and more than a dozen other civil rights organizations this week filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, urging the court to strike down Michigan's anti-equality Proposal 2 as unconstitutional.
In its brief, EJS argues that Proposal 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution by creating procedural barriers for people of color.
"Since its founding, certain interests in America have tried to restrict access to the political process," said Eva Paterson, President of the Equal Justice Society. "First only white male landowners could vote. The franchise was expanded after the Civil War but women could not participate. Now we see many states erecting barriers to voting that may appear harmless, but are designed to keep voters of color from helping shape their political destinies. The national civil rights community speaks in one strong voice in opposing these measures, including Michigan's Proposal 2."
Several organizations joined EJS in signing the brief: the California Voting Rights Institute, Public Advocates, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Women's Law Center, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Worksafe, South Asian Network, the Association of Asian American Attorney and CPA Firms, the Council of Asian American Business Associations, Equal Rights Advocates, and the Asian American Justice Center and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the latter two both members of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.
Michigan voters passed Proposal 2 in 2006, amending the state's constitution to prevent the state government from advancing equal opportunity by considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. In March 2008, a federal district court judge upheld the law, but the decision was reversed this July by an appeals court panel. The case is now under consideration by the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"We stand with our civil rights allies in opposing Proposal 2 and other similar laws that exclude racial minorities and women from the political process," said Allison Elgart, Supervising Attorney at the Equal Justice Society. "When people of color have to amend the state constitution just to have their interests represented, the law is not protecting their right to equal protection under the law, and the court should step in."
"Proposal 2 is the most recent example of a voter initiative that restructures the political process in a non-neutral way and places special burdens on racial minorities who want to lobby for race-conscious admissions processes," reads the brief. "Voting changes and requirements that disproportionately impact racial minorities and provide them less opportunity than others to participate in the political process and effectuate their choices are violations of the Equal Protection Clause."
The brief cites several reasons why Proposal 2 violates the Constitution:
The law impedes participation in the political process by people of color. After Proposal 2 passed, advocates of race-conscious admissions policies can no longer lobby admissions committees or university administrators. Their only recourse is to launch another statewide initiative, a costly process that could take years to see through to its conclusion. Advocates for other considerations in the admissions process do not face the same burden and are free to continue lobbying admissions committees without structural limitations.
People of color have historically faced hurdles that hinder participation in the political process. Participation in the political process by people of color in the past has been thwarted by literacy tests applied differently to distinct racial groups, electoral redistricting that disfavored racial minorities, and more recently by states that have established seemingly innocuous voter requirement laws that often result in racial exclusion and vote suppression. Courts have found these seemingly "neutral" laws unconstitutional if their purpose is to impede participation by people of color in the political process. Proposal 2 falls into this category.
Proposal 2 is a modern reincarnation of white primaries, literacy tests, and redistricting. Like voting, lobbying to change the admissions processes in Michigan is a way for people of color to participate in governance. The Equal Protection Clause "guarantees racial minorities the right to full participation in the political life of the community," and therefore requires that every group has equal opportunities to participate in the decision-making process, particularly in the context of public education. Proposal 2 prevents the full participation by people of color in the decision-making process regarding admissions.
The case should be fully briefed before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by the end of the year and the Sixth Circuit will then set a hearing date.
Download a PDF of this release Download a PDF of the amicus brief
The Equal Justice Society is a national legal organization focused on restoring Constitutional safeguards against discrimination. We aim to achieve a society where race is no longer a barrier to opportunity. We use a three-pronged approach - combining legal and policy, Grand Alliance and communication strategies - to reverse those laws and policies that erode the protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Donate to EJS or attend one of our events so thatwe can continue our important work

A Fire Department Under Pressure to Diversify

The New York Times
By ALAN FEUER
Published: August 26, 2011

IT was heaving rain two weeks ago when Salvatore J. Cassano, New York City’s fire commissioner, showed up on a Sunday to pitch his department to the congregants at Concord Baptist Church of Christ on Marcy Avenue in Brooklyn. No doubt because of the weather — people had stayed home at “Bedside Baptist,” the pastor joked — Mr. Cassano, gamely dressed in pinstripes, was confronted by empty pews. A trumpeter had just played hymns to some restless boys, a few old men and clumps of hatted matrons. From a microphone, the commissioner delivered to the half-filled room what had become the most important, and thorniest, public message of his career.

Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/nyregion/a-fire-department-under-pressure-to-diversify.html?nl=nyregion&emc=ura3

Judge Dismisses Pregnancy Bias Suit Against Bloomberg, Criticizes EEOC

Workforce Management
August 18, 2011

In a strongly worded opinion, a federal judge dismissed a 2007 lawsuit in which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accused Bloomberg Inc. of engaging in a pattern or practice of bias against pregnant women.
“ ‘J’accuse!’ is not enough in court,” U.S. District Court Judge Loretta A. Preska said in the ruling granting summary judgment. “Evidence is required. The evidence presented in this case is insufficient to demonstrate that discrimination was Bloomberg’s standard operating procedure, even if there were several isolated instances of individual discrimination.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/judge-dismisses-pregnancy-bias-suit-against-bloomberg.php

$6 Million Settlement for NUMMI Workers

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
8-19-11

Relief for Disabled Auto Workers Denied Severance Benefits
OAKLAND, Calif. - New United Motors & Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI), California’s last auto plant, has agreed to contribute to a $6 million settlement fund as part of a class settlement resolving complaints that the company violated federal law when it denied severance benefits to employees on medical leave, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.
With the historic closure of California’s last auto plant, the EEOC received charges from multiple employees laid off in April 2010, alleging that workers on medical leave were denied severance benefits and transitional services that other employees received. When the Fremont facility closed, employees received a severance package based on whether they worked during the last six months of NUMMI’s operation as well as their years of service. Workers informed the EEOC that they were physically capable of returning to work during the severance period but were denied reinstatement. As a result, most disabled workers were ineligible for the portion of severance pay that factored in their years of service. Many of the affected workers had worked for NUMMI for 25 to 30 years, and suffered losses of up to $38,000 each.
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) protects individuals with disabilities from employment discrimination. In June 2010, the EEOC’s Oakland Local Office issued ‘right to sue’ letters to several NUMMI workers, while retaining the right to continue its investigation led by Senior Investigator Margarita Hossaini-zadeh. Senior Trial Attorney Marcia Mitchell advised on this case.
While the EEOC charges were pending, a group of former employees filed a federal lawsuit (Cookson et al v. NUMMI, C10-02931 CRB (N.D. Cal.) on July 14, 2010. They were represented by private attorneys and two advocacy groups, the Impact Fund and The Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center.
Prior to the EEOC’s filing its own lawsuit, the EEOC, NUMMI and the workers all agreed to resolve the matter. The conciliation agreement between EEOC and NUMMI, attached to the settlement agreement for the private lawsuit, was submitted to Judge Charles Breyer today for preliminary approval.
NUMMI employees who meet the following criteria may be eligible to participate in a claims process over the coming months:
disabled under state and federal laws
on leave from work due to their own disability at any time between October 1, 2009 and April 1, 2010, and
denied all or any part of the NUMMI severance pay.
Contact settlement administrator Gilardi & Co., LLC at (415) 461-0410 for more information about the claims process.
“The NUMMI plant closure had an enormous impact regionally,” EEOC Oakland Local Director Kristine Jensen said. “The workers who came in to our office were devastated by the loss of severance benefits despite decades of loyal service. It was an extra blow on top of being forced back into a tough job market with their specialized skills as autoworkers and their disabilities. The EEOC commends NUMMI for working with the EEOC and the workers’ attorneys to resolve these allegations.”
New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. was an automobile manufacturing plant in Fremont, Calif., and the only automotive plant on the West Coast; its shutdown in April 2010 directly impacted an estimated 4,700 workers.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-19-11.cfm

Federal Court Rules In EEOC’s Favor, Holding That Fired Employees Are Not Required To Return To School

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE8-12-11


Court Denies Company’s Attempt to Limit Damages in Religious Discrimination Lawsuit; Prevents Defense Expert from Testifying
ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- Finding that employees have no obligation to go to school after they are fired, a federal court in Rochester has denied Dresser-Rand Company’s attempt to limit damages in a long-standing lawsuit between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the company.
In 2004 the EEOC sued Dresser-Rand, a Houston-based heavy manufacturing company (Civil Action No. 04-6300-CJS in U.S. District Court for the XXX District of New York), for firing Harry Davis, a Jehovah’s Witness and a manual machine tool operator at Dresser-Rand’s Painted Post, N.Y., location, for refusing to work on a part intended for use in a submarine. In 2006 the court denied Dresser-Rand’s attempt to dismiss the EEOC’s lawsuit in its entirety, holding that the jury should decide if an accommodation that had worked in the past – allowing Davis to switch assignments with other employees – could continue.
In 2010 Dresser-Rand attempted to limit Davis’s back pay damages, arguing that he could have gone to Corning Community College for retraining as a computer machinist. On Aug. 11, 2011, the court denied the motion, holding that employees who are fired for discriminatory reasons must seek other employment, and are not required to go to school for retraining. The court said that because Davis had sought and found other employment, the fact that he did not go to school was irrelevant. The court prevented a defense expert from testifying about the fact that Davis did not go to school. A trial date has not been set.
“This decision makes the important point that an employee fired for a discriminatory reason is not required to seek retraining or additional education,” said EEOC New York Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman. “An employer cannot turn around and argue that its former employee somehow harmed the employer by not seeking retraining after being fired.”
“Davis did what the law requires: sought and found work with the skills he had when he was fired by Dresser-Rand,” added EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Michael J. O’Brien.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-12-11b.cfm

Cavalier Telephone Pays $1 Million to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
7-18-11

Company Engaged in Unlawful Age Discrimination, Including Refusing to Hire Older Workers, Federal Agency Charged

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Cavalier Telephone Company Inc. will pay $1 million and furnish other significant relief to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, from around May 2003 and continuing, Cavalier Telephone’s mid-Atlantic region had a practice of not hiring applicants age 40 or older for sales account executive positions. The EEOC charged that Cavalier indicated both verbally and in writing that the company was looking for candidates for its sales positions who were “recent college graduates,” and in their “early 20s or 30s.” Cavalier offered its employees a $500 bonus for referral of a “friend’s younger brother and sister.” The EEOC alleged that as a result of the discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices, Cavalier maintained a work force that underrepresented people age 40 or older in its sales positions within its mid-Atlantic region. The company’s mid-Atlantic region includes five states – Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey – as well as Washington, D.C.

The EEOC’s complaint also included individual claims of retaliation against two former Cavalier Telephone employees. The complaint alleged that two former employees were demoted for complaining about the company’s discriminatory hiring practices. One of the demoted employees resigned from Cavalier while the other continued to complain about age discrimination and was ultimately fired, the EEOC charged.

Age discrimination violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Persons age 40 or older are protected from employment discrimination by the act. It is also unlawful under the ADEA to retaliate against an employee who complains about age discrimination because of his or her complaint. The EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cavalier Telephone Company, Inc.; Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-664 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Pursuant to the consent decree resolving the litigation, Cavalier agreed to pay $1 million in monetary relief. The money will be distributed to the two individuals who were allegedly retaliated against for complaining about the discriminatory practices and to a class of individuals age 40 or older who, the EEOC determined, were not hired because of their age.

“Cavalier Telephone’s hiring practices penalized older applicants simply because of their age and that is illegal,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “I am pleased that we were able to work out a resolution of this suit that provides relief for the victims of discrimination and brings the company’s practices into compliance with the law.”

“We brought this lawsuit to advance everyone’s legal right to a workplace free of age bias,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office, which oversees litigation filed by the agency in Virginia. “Stereotypes concerning the abilities of older workers often lead companies to make discriminatory hiring decisions. This lawsuit and settlement will serve as a reminder to all employers that companies must make employment decisions based on an applicant’s ability to perform the job, not his or her age.”

In addition to the monetary relief, the three-year consent decree resolving this case provides significant injunctive relief covering Cavalier Telephone’s locations in its mid-Atlantic region. For example, the decree:

•prohibits Cavalier from further discriminating against job applicants or employees because of age and retaliating against any of its employees or applicants;
•requires Cavalier to use an applicant tracking system for persons hired and for any person who submits an application, and to provide specific information about its hiring of applicants by age; and

•mandates that Cavalier provide training to staff, post a notice about its commitment to equal opportunity and a diverse work force and report compliance to the EEOC.
The decree also requires Cavalier to provide jobs to qualified applicants age 40 or older who were denied hire because of the alleged discriminatory hiring practices.

According to its website, Richmond, Va.-based Cavalier Telephone is a full-service provider of telecommunication services for residential and business customers. In December 2010, after this lawsuit was filed, Cavalier was acquired by PAETEC and now the combined companies deliver telecommunication services in 86 of the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the United States.

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

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-18-11.cfm

Governor files legal opinion against ban on affirmative action

Los Angeles Times
July 8, 2011 5:59 pm

Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday added his voice in support of a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on racial affirmative action in public university admissions.
In a legal brief, Brown said that minorities face too high a barrier in efforts to overturn Proposition 209, which voters approved in 1996, because it is part of the state Constitution and not just a law or university policy. In addition, he noted a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said race could be considered in state college admissions if it did not involve quotas or carry predetermined weight in decisions.

Full Story: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/gov-brown-files-legal-opinion-against-ban-on-affirmative-action.html

Former Employee Breaks Silence About Landmark Sexual Harassment Case

Fox2now.com (St. Louis)
By Betsey Bruce FOX2now.com
June 11, 2011
Jury Awarded $95 Million In Aaron's Lawsuit

FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, IL (KTVI-FOX2Now.com)— "In the beginning, all I wanted was help." That's how Ashley Alford explains her decision to go to court over a year of sexual harassment in the workplace... harassment that ended with three lewd sex acts.Saturday she spoke out explaining how others encouraged her to go forward with the legal case. Her victory in court this week gave her vindication and an understanding she can help other victims get help.
Tuesday a federal jury in East St. Louis found Alford's former employer, Aaron's, a lease to own store, and her former boss, Richard Moore liable for sexual harassment. The jury awarded Alford a near record $95 million. Caps on federal cases of this sort mean the most she will receive is $40 million.

Full Story: http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-victim-speaks-aarons-lawsuit-61111,0,322202.story

Former aide suing Rowan loses round

Courier Post Online
Written by
JIM WALSH
May 22, 2011

A federal judge has dismissed a civil-rights lawsuit brought against Rowan University by the school's former affirmative-action officer.
But Richard Williams intends to continue his fight, said his Mount Ephraim attorney, Fredrick Gross.
"I expect to be filing an amended complaint soon," said Gross, who offered no details about his future strategy.
Williams sued Rowan and its former president, Donald Farish, on Dec. 16, 2010, alleging he had been the victim of bias at the Glassboro school.
The Willingboro man contended he faced bias due to disability in July 2007, when he was demoted to a counselor's position after returning from sick leave.

Full Story: http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20110522/NEWS01/105220344/Former-aide-suing-Rowan-loses-round

Chubb Insurance To Pay $110,000 To Hmong Employee In EEOC Discrimination Suit

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
5-4-11

Company Rejected Woman for Promotions Based on Her Asian Race, Retaliated Against Her for Complaining to EEOC, Federal Agency Charged

MILWAUKEE – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that a federal judge has entered a $110,000 consent decree that resolves an EEOC race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought against Federal Insurance Company, doing business as Chubb & Son, a U.S.-based property and casualty insurance giant with business worldwide.
The EEOC charged that Chubb refused to promote Kong Chee Vang, a Hmong employee, in its Milwaukee underwriting office because of her Asian race. The EEOC contended that Chubb failed to stop its managers from using stereotypes and negative assumptions based on race while supposedly considering Vang in 2006 and 2007 for a promotion to underwriter.
The suit further asserted that Chubb retaliated against Vang after she filed a complaint with EEOC alleging that her Hmong national origin and Asian race were the reasons she did not get the promotion. The retaliation, the EEOC said, consisted of Chubb’s rejecting Vang for a second promotion later in 2007.
Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that job discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation for complaining about it are illegal. The EEOC enforces both provisions of Title VII, and has recently seen an increase in retaliation complaints nationwide.
The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Insurance Company, d/b/a Chubb & Son, Case No. 10-c-0849 (E.D. Wis.), was filed in September 2010 and was scheduled for voluntary mediation before U.S. Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein. The parties reached an agreement before the scheduled mediation and the resulting consent decree was approved by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman yesterday, May 3, 2011. Brian Tyndall, an EEOC Trial Attorney in Milwaukee, led the agency’s litigation effort.
Vang, who still works for Chubb, will receive back wages of $60,000 and compensatory damages of $50,000 for emotional distress.
“Business decisions involving jobs -- including decisions on promotions -- cannot be based on negative racial assumptions or stereotypes,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District, which includes Wisconsin. “When race gets into employment decision making, the process itself is fatally defective, and the EEOC will not hesitate to challenge it. The same is true when retaliation infects the situation. Managers who may think they are ‘just standing up’ for their companies when they retaliate against complainants are, in fact, just doing more damage.”
The decree also provides non-monetary relief, including an injunction against further discrimination or retaliation, required anti-discrimination training for Chubb employees, and reporting to EEOC in the event of future discrimination complaints made to Chubb by employees.
“The aim in all EEOC litigation is to end the discrimination and prevent a recurrence,” said EEOC Associate Regional Attorney Jean P. Kamp, who supervised the litigation. “The consent decree here puts the protections in place to make that a reality, and we are pleased that Chubb found a way to work with us at the EEOC to promptly bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.”
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-4-11.cfm

EEOC Sues Company in One of the Largest Cases of Human Trafficking

Hispanically Speaking News
Published at 1:24 pm, April 25, 2011

The federal government is suing a farm labor recruiter out of Beverly Hills on charges of human trafficking.
Global Horizons Inc. is being sued in one of the largest cases the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ever had. The civil complaints allege that the company forced a number of workers to harvest pineapples and coffee beans while living in rat-infested conditions.
The farms at with the laborers worked were in Washington and Hawaii, and the EEOC claims that Global Horizons routinely practiced origin and race discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Full Story: http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/eeoc-sues-company-in-one-of-the-largest-cases-of-human-trafficking/7166/

QuickWire: Law School Admission Council to Make Site More Accessible to Blind Applicants

The Chronicle of Higher Education
April 25, 2011, 6:42 pm
By Katie Mangan

The council that administers the Law School Admission Test has agreed to make its entire Web site accessible to blind law-school applicants who use screen-reader software, the association announced on Monday. That move is part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed in 2009 by the National Federation of the Blind.

Full Story: https://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/quickwire-law-school-admission-council-to-make-site-more-accessible-to-blind-applicants/31102

Federal Courts Rebuff Faculty Discrimination Suits

Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Eric Freedman , April 20, 2011

In recent months, federal judges in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Arizona have dealt major setbacks to faculty members in lawsuits alleging racial discrimination at three universities:
Duquesne University
In Pennsylvania, U.S. District Judge Nora Fischer dismissed most claims by Kellen McClendon, a tenured African-American associate professor who was passed over for dean of the Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh.
McClendon alleged that racial bias played a role in denying him even an initial interview during a 2004 dean’s search. The hiring committee chairman, Duquesne Provost Ralph Pearson, reportedly told another committee member at the time that he “did not want to advance a ‘token’ to the interview stage,” according to court documents.

Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/article/15284/

The top ten mistakes employers make that can lead to litigation

Lexology. com Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP Peter A. Rutledge USA March 14 2011 Sometimes getting through your workday is challenging enough in itself. Flurries of meetings, paperwork, emails and phone calls bombard us all, and amid the stress, it’s very easy to forget the essentials of the most basic HR practices. What is infinitely more stressful, however, is your company being sued by a disgruntled employee. The following list serves to remind you of the fundamental ways you can protect your company (and how you can keep “testify in court” off your to-do list). Poorly drafted or inconsistently applied personnel policies: In addition to reviewing your policies periodically, you need to ensure that they are internally consistent, and that policies are based on and accurately reflect the law (ADA, FMLA, etc.) It’s also extremely important to remember that no good deed goes unpunished. Inconsistent application of policies is the most fertile ground for plaintiffs in discrimination claims. Your good deed could be used against you. Unintentional modification of at-will employment: Oral promises like, “You’ll always have a job here,” or “Keep up the good work and you’ll be promoted,” can get you into hot water. The failure to affix appropriate at-will disclaimers in manuals or policies can also have consequences later. Breach of contract claims almost always go to a jury, so your best defense is to avoid inadvertantly creating an employment contract in the first place. Mishandling personnel documents and information: The list of things that should be included in personnel files includes applications/resumes, performance reviews, employment contracts, corrective action memos, and signed employee acknowledgments. Things that should never appear in personnel files include medical information, I-9 forms, information about employees’ protected status, or potentially libelous material. Careless treatment of employee complaints: In addition to having a clearly written complaint policy, you should respond to complaints promptly, thoroughly and effectively. Maintaining as much confidentiality as is reasonably possible, and involving only those who need to know are key. Assurance against retaliation is also essential. Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=56ba0377-eca4-4154-b51d-6b3a1a2969ef&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-03-31&utm_term=