jobmouse
Published On: Mon, Mar 26th, 2012
Financial services company Wells Fargo Financial Michigan, Inc., has agreed to settle an age and race discrimination suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for $55,000, the agency announced Friday.
The financial services company was formerly located in various cities in Michigan and previously employing at least 200 employees.
Full Story: http://thejobmouse.com/2012/03/26/wells-fargo-financial-michigan-settles-eeoc-race-and-age-discrimination-suit-2/
Showing posts with label race discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race discrimination. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Ready Mix to pay $400K to Settle Racial Harassment Suit
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
2-21-12
Class of Blacks Subjected to Noose Display and Racial Slurs, Federal Agency Charged
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Ready Mix USA, a major cement and concrete products company, will pay $400,000 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit for racial harassment filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that a class of African American males at Ready Mix’s Montgomery-area facilities was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The EEOC said that a noose was displayed in the worksite, that derogatory racial language, including references to the Ku Klux Klan, was used by a direct supervisor and manager and that race-based name calling occurred. Ready Mix denies that racial harassment occurred at its worksites.
Racial discrimination and harassment violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit against Ready Mix USA LLC, doing business as Couch Ready Mix USA LLC (EEOC v. Ready Mix USA 2:09-CV-923) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The consent decree settling the suit provides that Ready Mix will pay a total of $400,000 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among the seven class members. Each party will bear its own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The two-year decree enjoins Ready Mix from engaging in further racial harassment or retaliation and requires that the company conduct EEO training. Ready Mix will be required to modify its policies to ensure that racial harassment is prohibited and a system for investigation of complaints is in place. The company must also report certain complaints of harassment or retaliation to the EEOC for monitoring.
“Employees have a right to expect that harassment based on race will be kept out of the workplace,” said Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director for the EEOC Birmingham District. “This case involved not only racist language, but a noose, a threatening symbol of cruelty that has no place in any American workplace.”
EEOC Birmingham District Regional Attorney C. Emanuel Smith said, “We are pleased that Ready Mix has taken these steps to address this very alarming situation and improve its work environment. We encourage all employers to help make workplace race discrimination a thing of the past.”
According to company information, Ready Mix provides cement and concrete products to construction projects in industrial, commercial, residential and municipal projects.
In Fiscal Year 2011, the EEOC received 35,395 charges alleging race-based discrimination and 8776 of those alleged race-based harassment. Historically, race-based charges account for more than 35% of all charge filings nationwide.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-21-12.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
2-21-12
Class of Blacks Subjected to Noose Display and Racial Slurs, Federal Agency Charged
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Ready Mix USA, a major cement and concrete products company, will pay $400,000 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit for racial harassment filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that a class of African American males at Ready Mix’s Montgomery-area facilities was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The EEOC said that a noose was displayed in the worksite, that derogatory racial language, including references to the Ku Klux Klan, was used by a direct supervisor and manager and that race-based name calling occurred. Ready Mix denies that racial harassment occurred at its worksites.
Racial discrimination and harassment violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit against Ready Mix USA LLC, doing business as Couch Ready Mix USA LLC (EEOC v. Ready Mix USA 2:09-CV-923) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The consent decree settling the suit provides that Ready Mix will pay a total of $400,000 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among the seven class members. Each party will bear its own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The two-year decree enjoins Ready Mix from engaging in further racial harassment or retaliation and requires that the company conduct EEO training. Ready Mix will be required to modify its policies to ensure that racial harassment is prohibited and a system for investigation of complaints is in place. The company must also report certain complaints of harassment or retaliation to the EEOC for monitoring.
“Employees have a right to expect that harassment based on race will be kept out of the workplace,” said Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director for the EEOC Birmingham District. “This case involved not only racist language, but a noose, a threatening symbol of cruelty that has no place in any American workplace.”
EEOC Birmingham District Regional Attorney C. Emanuel Smith said, “We are pleased that Ready Mix has taken these steps to address this very alarming situation and improve its work environment. We encourage all employers to help make workplace race discrimination a thing of the past.”
According to company information, Ready Mix provides cement and concrete products to construction projects in industrial, commercial, residential and municipal projects.
In Fiscal Year 2011, the EEOC received 35,395 charges alleging race-based discrimination and 8776 of those alleged race-based harassment. Historically, race-based charges account for more than 35% of all charge filings nationwide.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-21-12.cfm
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
US Labor Department settles charges of racial discrimination with Houston-based defense contractor JacintoPort
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
OFCCP News Release: [01/12/2012]
Contact Name: Elizabeth Todd or Juan Rodriguez
Phone Number: (972) 850-4710 or x4709
Release Number: 12-0015-DAL
Agreement includes $219,000 in back wages and interest for 69 African-American and Caucasian applicants plus job offers for some
HOUSTON — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs today announced that government contractor JacintoPort International LLC has agreed to settle allegations of hiring discrimination on the basis of race involving 48 African-American and 21 Caucasian job applicants who were rejected for longshoreman positions at the company's cargo facility in Houston.
"In this day and age, it is shocking that any company would allow race to be a factor in determining who gets hired," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "This settlement should put all federal contractors on notice that, in the Obama administration, we will be persistent when it comes to rooting out workplace discrimination and will vigilantly monitor employers who violate the law until they get it right."
OFCCP previously cited JacintoPort for violating requirements of Executive Order 11246 by failing to implement an applicant tracking system for new hires, and to develop and execute action-oriented programs to recruit women and African-Americans. That matter was settled on June 6, 2006, with a conciliation document in which JacintoPort agreed to correct the violations and produce semiannual reports on the company's progress in employing women and minorities.
In reviewing those progress reports, OFCCP investigators found that the company was giving preferential treatment to Latino applicants and systematically discriminating against African-Americans and Caucasians seeking longshoreman jobs. Under the terms of the latest conciliation agreement, JacintoPort will pay $219,000 in back wages and interest to the affected individuals, and make 17 job offers to members of the original class as longshoreman positions become available. In addition, JacintoPort has agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure that all hiring practices fully comply with the law, including record-keeping requirements.
JacintoPort, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shawnee Mission, Kan.-based Seaboard Corp., currently holds more than $1.2 million in contracts to store and transport cargo for the Defense Commissary Agency.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. As amended, these three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For general information, call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit its website at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.
Read this news release en Español.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20120015.htm
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
OFCCP News Release: [01/12/2012]
Contact Name: Elizabeth Todd or Juan Rodriguez
Phone Number: (972) 850-4710 or x4709
Release Number: 12-0015-DAL
Agreement includes $219,000 in back wages and interest for 69 African-American and Caucasian applicants plus job offers for some
HOUSTON — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs today announced that government contractor JacintoPort International LLC has agreed to settle allegations of hiring discrimination on the basis of race involving 48 African-American and 21 Caucasian job applicants who were rejected for longshoreman positions at the company's cargo facility in Houston.
"In this day and age, it is shocking that any company would allow race to be a factor in determining who gets hired," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "This settlement should put all federal contractors on notice that, in the Obama administration, we will be persistent when it comes to rooting out workplace discrimination and will vigilantly monitor employers who violate the law until they get it right."
OFCCP previously cited JacintoPort for violating requirements of Executive Order 11246 by failing to implement an applicant tracking system for new hires, and to develop and execute action-oriented programs to recruit women and African-Americans. That matter was settled on June 6, 2006, with a conciliation document in which JacintoPort agreed to correct the violations and produce semiannual reports on the company's progress in employing women and minorities.
In reviewing those progress reports, OFCCP investigators found that the company was giving preferential treatment to Latino applicants and systematically discriminating against African-Americans and Caucasians seeking longshoreman jobs. Under the terms of the latest conciliation agreement, JacintoPort will pay $219,000 in back wages and interest to the affected individuals, and make 17 job offers to members of the original class as longshoreman positions become available. In addition, JacintoPort has agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure that all hiring practices fully comply with the law, including record-keeping requirements.
JacintoPort, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shawnee Mission, Kan.-based Seaboard Corp., currently holds more than $1.2 million in contracts to store and transport cargo for the Defense Commissary Agency.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. As amended, these three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For general information, call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit its website at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.
Read this news release en Español.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20120015.htm
Pepsi to Pay $3.13 Million and Made Major Policy Changes to Resolve EEOC Finding of Nationwide Hiring Discrimination Against African Americans
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
1-11-12
Company’s Former Use of Criminal Background Checks Discriminated Based On Race, Agency Found
MINNEAPOLIS – Pepsi Beverages (Pepsi), formerly known as Pepsi Bottling Group, has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training to resolve a charge of race discrimination filed in the Minneapolis Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The monetary settlement will primarily be divided among black applicants for positions at Pepsi, with a portion of the sum being allocated for the administration of the claims process. Based on the investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the criminal background check policy formerly used by Pepsi discriminated against African Americans in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The EEOC’s investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment. Under Pepsi’s former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense.
Pepsi’s former policy also denied employment to applicants from employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses. The use of arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not relevant for the job, because it can limit the employment opportunities of applicants or workers based on their race or ethnicity.
“The EEOC has long standing guidance and policy statements on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “I commend Pepsi’s willingness to re-examine its policy and modify it to ensure that unwarranted roadblocks to employment are removed.”
During the course of the EEOC’s investigation, Pepsi adopted a new criminal background check policy. In addition to the monetary relief, Pepsi will offer employment opportunities to victims of the former criminal background check policy who still want jobs at Pepsi and are qualified for the jobs for which they apply. The company will supply the EEOC with regular reports on its hiring practices under its new criminal background check policy. Pepsi will conduct Title VII training for its hiring personnel and all of its managers.
“When employers contemplate instituting a background check policy, the EEOC recommends that they take into consideration the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job sought in order to be sure that the exclusion is important for the particular position. Such exclusions can create an adverse impact based on race in violation of Title VII,” said Julie Schmid, Acting Director of the EEOC’s Minneapolis Area Office. “We hope that employers with unnecessarily broad criminal background check policies take note of this agreement and reassess their policies to ensure compliance with Title VII.”
“We obtained significant financial relief for a large number of victims of discrimination, got them job opportunities that they were previously denied, and eradicated an unlawful barrier for future applicants,” said EEOC Chicago District Director John Rowe. “We are pleased that Pepsi chose to work with us to reach this conciliation agreement and that through our joint efforts, we have been able to bring about real change at Pepsi without resorting to litigation.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws against employment discrimination. The EEOC issued its first written policy guidance regarding the use of arrest and conviction records in employment in the 1980s. The Commission also considered this issue in 2008 and held a meeting on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment last summer. The EEOC is a member of the federal interagency Reentry Council, a Cabinet-level interagency group convened to examine all aspects of reentry of individuals with criminal records.
The Minneapolis Area Office is part of the EEOC’s Chicago District. The Chicago District is responsible for investigating charges of discrimination in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and North and South Dakota. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-11-12a.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
1-11-12
Company’s Former Use of Criminal Background Checks Discriminated Based On Race, Agency Found
MINNEAPOLIS – Pepsi Beverages (Pepsi), formerly known as Pepsi Bottling Group, has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training to resolve a charge of race discrimination filed in the Minneapolis Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The monetary settlement will primarily be divided among black applicants for positions at Pepsi, with a portion of the sum being allocated for the administration of the claims process. Based on the investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the criminal background check policy formerly used by Pepsi discriminated against African Americans in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The EEOC’s investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment. Under Pepsi’s former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense.
Pepsi’s former policy also denied employment to applicants from employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses. The use of arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not relevant for the job, because it can limit the employment opportunities of applicants or workers based on their race or ethnicity.
“The EEOC has long standing guidance and policy statements on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “I commend Pepsi’s willingness to re-examine its policy and modify it to ensure that unwarranted roadblocks to employment are removed.”
During the course of the EEOC’s investigation, Pepsi adopted a new criminal background check policy. In addition to the monetary relief, Pepsi will offer employment opportunities to victims of the former criminal background check policy who still want jobs at Pepsi and are qualified for the jobs for which they apply. The company will supply the EEOC with regular reports on its hiring practices under its new criminal background check policy. Pepsi will conduct Title VII training for its hiring personnel and all of its managers.
“When employers contemplate instituting a background check policy, the EEOC recommends that they take into consideration the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job sought in order to be sure that the exclusion is important for the particular position. Such exclusions can create an adverse impact based on race in violation of Title VII,” said Julie Schmid, Acting Director of the EEOC’s Minneapolis Area Office. “We hope that employers with unnecessarily broad criminal background check policies take note of this agreement and reassess their policies to ensure compliance with Title VII.”
“We obtained significant financial relief for a large number of victims of discrimination, got them job opportunities that they were previously denied, and eradicated an unlawful barrier for future applicants,” said EEOC Chicago District Director John Rowe. “We are pleased that Pepsi chose to work with us to reach this conciliation agreement and that through our joint efforts, we have been able to bring about real change at Pepsi without resorting to litigation.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws against employment discrimination. The EEOC issued its first written policy guidance regarding the use of arrest and conviction records in employment in the 1980s. The Commission also considered this issue in 2008 and held a meeting on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment last summer. The EEOC is a member of the federal interagency Reentry Council, a Cabinet-level interagency group convened to examine all aspects of reentry of individuals with criminal records.
The Minneapolis Area Office is part of the EEOC’s Chicago District. The Chicago District is responsible for investigating charges of discrimination in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and North and South Dakota. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-11-12a.cfm
Monday, January 9, 2012
Matrix L.L.C. Will Pay $450,000 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
1-6-12
Cleaning Company Fired African-American Employees and White Employee Who Refused to Discriminate, Federal Agency Said
PHILADELPHIA – Matrix, L.L.C., one of the region’s largest cleaning companies, will pay $450,000 to a class of 15 former employees and provide significant relief to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
In the lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Matrix officials told white supervisor Barbara Palermi not to hire any more black cleaners to work at a client’s site in Concordville, Pa. When Palermi hired additional black cleaners based on their qualifications to do the job, Matrix dismissed her in retaliation for opposing the company’s racial discrimination. The EEOC alleged that Matrix management officials also discriminated against the African-American cleaners, telling them to sit in the back of the cafeteria during break times and later disallowing them from using the cafeteria at all for their breaks. Matrix later fired all of the employees at the worksite and replaced them with an entirely non-black cleaning crew, the EEOC said in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-06183.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, and makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for opposing discrimination, including opposing instructions to make hiring decisions based on race. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
In addition to the monetary relief to the class of fifteen, the three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit bars Matrix from engaging in any further race discrimination or retaliation. Matrix is required to train its supervisors and managers about the prohibitions against racial discrimination and retaliation, report to the EEOC regarding against complaints of discrimination or retaliation at the Concordville, Pa., work site and post a remedial notice. The consent decree was approved by the court on January 4, 2011.
“We commend the company for its agreement to carry out the significant equitable relief provided in the consent decree, including providing expansive annual training, which will benefit all company employees,” said District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office.
EEOC regional attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, “We appreciate Matrix’s cooperation and diligence throughout the negotiation process to resolve this case quickly without engaging in protracted and costly litigation.”
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/1-6-12.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
1-6-12
Cleaning Company Fired African-American Employees and White Employee Who Refused to Discriminate, Federal Agency Said
PHILADELPHIA – Matrix, L.L.C., one of the region’s largest cleaning companies, will pay $450,000 to a class of 15 former employees and provide significant relief to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
In the lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Matrix officials told white supervisor Barbara Palermi not to hire any more black cleaners to work at a client’s site in Concordville, Pa. When Palermi hired additional black cleaners based on their qualifications to do the job, Matrix dismissed her in retaliation for opposing the company’s racial discrimination. The EEOC alleged that Matrix management officials also discriminated against the African-American cleaners, telling them to sit in the back of the cafeteria during break times and later disallowing them from using the cafeteria at all for their breaks. Matrix later fired all of the employees at the worksite and replaced them with an entirely non-black cleaning crew, the EEOC said in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-06183.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, and makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for opposing discrimination, including opposing instructions to make hiring decisions based on race. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
In addition to the monetary relief to the class of fifteen, the three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit bars Matrix from engaging in any further race discrimination or retaliation. Matrix is required to train its supervisors and managers about the prohibitions against racial discrimination and retaliation, report to the EEOC regarding against complaints of discrimination or retaliation at the Concordville, Pa., work site and post a remedial notice. The consent decree was approved by the court on January 4, 2011.
“We commend the company for its agreement to carry out the significant equitable relief provided in the consent decree, including providing expansive annual training, which will benefit all company employees,” said District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office.
EEOC regional attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, “We appreciate Matrix’s cooperation and diligence throughout the negotiation process to resolve this case quickly without engaging in protracted and costly litigation.”
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/1-6-12.cfm
Monday, June 6, 2011
Dots To Pay Nearly A Quarter Million To Settle EEOC Race Discrimination Suit
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-3-11
Merrillville, Ind., Store Denied Jobs to White Applicants on a Systemic Basis, Federal Agency Charged
INDIANAPOLIS – Dots, Inc., a national women’s off-priced clothing retailer, will pay $246,500 and furnish other relief to settle a class race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Dots’ Merrillville, Ind., clothing store denied jobs on a systemic basis to white applicants since at least April 1, 2007. During that time, the EEOC contended, Dots regularly hired black entry-level applicants for sales positions, but excluded white applicants who were equally or better qualified.
Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The consent decree settling the suit provides that the settlement proceeds will be distributed to 32 class members. The decree also requires Dots to notify class members of open sales positions for a period of 18 months and to offer them interviews if they are still interested in employment with the company. Dots agreed to cease any further discrimination against white applicants and not to retaliate against applicants or employees who exercise their rights to complain about discrimination or assist in an investigation or discrimination-related proceeding. Dots will post a notice of non-discrimination at each of its facilities in Indiana and Illinois under its District 11 and train its managers and employees involved in the hiring process. Dots will also report on all hiring at its Merrillville location for a three-year period and will submit reports to EEOC detailing its compliance with the decree.
“We hope that this is a wake-up call for Dots and other employers who believe that they are in compliance with the law if they hire minority applicants while excluding white applicants,” said EEOC Indianapolis Regional Attorney Laurie A. Young.
According to company information, Glenwillow, Ohio-based Dots has more than 400 stores in 28 states.
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 .
The EEOC’s Indianapolis Office is located at 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite 1900, Indianapolis, IN 46204. The EEOC’s Louisville Office is located at 600 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Place, Suite 268, Louisville, KY 40202. The EEOC’s Cincinnati Office is located at 550 Main Street, Suite 10019, Cincinnati, OH 45202, and the EEOC’s Detroit Office is located at 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, MI 48226. The EEOC’s toll-free telephone number is (800) 669-4000, TTY: (317) 226-5162.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-3-11a.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
6-3-11
Merrillville, Ind., Store Denied Jobs to White Applicants on a Systemic Basis, Federal Agency Charged
INDIANAPOLIS – Dots, Inc., a national women’s off-priced clothing retailer, will pay $246,500 and furnish other relief to settle a class race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Dots’ Merrillville, Ind., clothing store denied jobs on a systemic basis to white applicants since at least April 1, 2007. During that time, the EEOC contended, Dots regularly hired black entry-level applicants for sales positions, but excluded white applicants who were equally or better qualified.
Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The consent decree settling the suit provides that the settlement proceeds will be distributed to 32 class members. The decree also requires Dots to notify class members of open sales positions for a period of 18 months and to offer them interviews if they are still interested in employment with the company. Dots agreed to cease any further discrimination against white applicants and not to retaliate against applicants or employees who exercise their rights to complain about discrimination or assist in an investigation or discrimination-related proceeding. Dots will post a notice of non-discrimination at each of its facilities in Indiana and Illinois under its District 11 and train its managers and employees involved in the hiring process. Dots will also report on all hiring at its Merrillville location for a three-year period and will submit reports to EEOC detailing its compliance with the decree.
“We hope that this is a wake-up call for Dots and other employers who believe that they are in compliance with the law if they hire minority applicants while excluding white applicants,” said EEOC Indianapolis Regional Attorney Laurie A. Young.
According to company information, Glenwillow, Ohio-based Dots has more than 400 stores in 28 states.
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 .
The EEOC’s Indianapolis Office is located at 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite 1900, Indianapolis, IN 46204. The EEOC’s Louisville Office is located at 600 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Place, Suite 268, Louisville, KY 40202. The EEOC’s Cincinnati Office is located at 550 Main Street, Suite 10019, Cincinnati, OH 45202, and the EEOC’s Detroit Office is located at 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, MI 48226. The EEOC’s toll-free telephone number is (800) 669-4000, TTY: (317) 226-5162.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-3-11a.cfm
Monday, May 9, 2011
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
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
Thursday, January 13, 2011
EEOC Reports Job Bias Charges Hit Record High of Nearly 100,000 in Fiscal Year 2010
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
1-11-11
Retaliation Surpasses Race as Most Frequent Allegation; Agency Obtains $404 Million for Victims
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that private sector workplace discrimination charge filings with the federal agency nationwide hit an unprecedented level of 99,922 during fiscal year (FY) 2010, which ended Sept. 30, 2010.
Despite the increase in overall charges filed with the EEOC last fiscal year, the Commission dramatically slowed the growth of the charge inventory. As a result, the federal agency ended FY 2010 with 86,338 pending charges - an increase of only 570 charges, or less than one percent. Between fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the EEOC's pending inventory increased 15.9 percent.
"We are pleased to see that our rebuilding efforts are having an impact on how efficiently and effectively the Commission enforces the civil rights laws protecting the nation's workers," said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. "Discrimination continues to be a substantial problem for too many job seekers and workers, and we must continue to build our capacity to enforce the laws that ensure that workplaces are free of unlawful bias."
The FY 2010 data show that the EEOC filed 250 lawsuits, resolved 285 lawsuits, and resolved 104,999 private sector charges. Through its combined enforcement, mediation and litigation programs, the EEOC secured more than $404 million in monetary benefits from employers -- the highest level of monetary relief ever obtained by the Commission through the administrative process -- to promote inclusive and discrimination-free workplaces.
The FY 2010 enforcement and litigation statistics, which include trend data, are available online at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm.
According to the FY 2010 data, all major categories of charge filings in the private sector (which include charges filed against state and local governments) increased. These include charges alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; the Equal Pay Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Last year, for the first time ever, retaliation under all statutes (36,258) surpassed race (35,890) as the most frequently filed charge, while allegations based on religion (3,790), disability (25,165) and age (23,264) increased. In its first year of enforcement, the EEOC received 201 charges under GINA. Historically, race had been the most frequently filed charge since the EEOC became operational in 1965. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm
The FY 2010 data also show:
The mediation program ended the year with a record 9,370 resolutions, 10 percent more than FY 2009 levels, and more than $142 million in monetary benefits;
The EEOC also expanded its reach to underserved communities by providing educational training, and public outreach events to approximately 250,000 persons;
The agency continued its concerted effort to build a strong national systemic enforcement program. At the end of the fiscal year, 465 systemic investigations, involving more than 2,000 charges, were being undertaken;
The EEOC resolved a total of 7,213 requests for hearings in the federal sector, securing more than $63 million in relief for parties who requested hearings. The agency also resolved more than 4,600 federal sector appeals -- 400 more than in FY 2009.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site (www.eeoc.gov).
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-11-11.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
1-11-11
Retaliation Surpasses Race as Most Frequent Allegation; Agency Obtains $404 Million for Victims
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that private sector workplace discrimination charge filings with the federal agency nationwide hit an unprecedented level of 99,922 during fiscal year (FY) 2010, which ended Sept. 30, 2010.
Despite the increase in overall charges filed with the EEOC last fiscal year, the Commission dramatically slowed the growth of the charge inventory. As a result, the federal agency ended FY 2010 with 86,338 pending charges - an increase of only 570 charges, or less than one percent. Between fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the EEOC's pending inventory increased 15.9 percent.
"We are pleased to see that our rebuilding efforts are having an impact on how efficiently and effectively the Commission enforces the civil rights laws protecting the nation's workers," said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. "Discrimination continues to be a substantial problem for too many job seekers and workers, and we must continue to build our capacity to enforce the laws that ensure that workplaces are free of unlawful bias."
The FY 2010 data show that the EEOC filed 250 lawsuits, resolved 285 lawsuits, and resolved 104,999 private sector charges. Through its combined enforcement, mediation and litigation programs, the EEOC secured more than $404 million in monetary benefits from employers -- the highest level of monetary relief ever obtained by the Commission through the administrative process -- to promote inclusive and discrimination-free workplaces.
The FY 2010 enforcement and litigation statistics, which include trend data, are available online at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm.
According to the FY 2010 data, all major categories of charge filings in the private sector (which include charges filed against state and local governments) increased. These include charges alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; the Equal Pay Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Last year, for the first time ever, retaliation under all statutes (36,258) surpassed race (35,890) as the most frequently filed charge, while allegations based on religion (3,790), disability (25,165) and age (23,264) increased. In its first year of enforcement, the EEOC received 201 charges under GINA. Historically, race had been the most frequently filed charge since the EEOC became operational in 1965. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm
The FY 2010 data also show:
The mediation program ended the year with a record 9,370 resolutions, 10 percent more than FY 2009 levels, and more than $142 million in monetary benefits;
The EEOC also expanded its reach to underserved communities by providing educational training, and public outreach events to approximately 250,000 persons;
The agency continued its concerted effort to build a strong national systemic enforcement program. At the end of the fiscal year, 465 systemic investigations, involving more than 2,000 charges, were being undertaken;
The EEOC resolved a total of 7,213 requests for hearings in the federal sector, securing more than $63 million in relief for parties who requested hearings. The agency also resolved more than 4,600 federal sector appeals -- 400 more than in FY 2009.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site (www.eeoc.gov).
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-11-11.cfm
Monday, December 20, 2010
Ex-affirmative action officer sues Rowan
Newsday.com
Originally published: December 18, 2010 2:57
PMUpdated: December 18, 2010 2:57 PM
By The Associated Press
GLASSBORO, N.J. - (AP) — A former Rowan University affirmative action officer is suing the school, claiming he was the victim of discrimination.
Richard Williams says he was demoted in 2007 then forced to retire the next year after he testified against the university in a discrimination case eight years ago.
In his suit, Williams, who is black, says he attempted to retract a retirement notice, but was denied.
Full Story: http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/ex-affirmative-action-officer-sues-rowan-1.2551972
Originally published: December 18, 2010 2:57
PMUpdated: December 18, 2010 2:57 PM
By The Associated Press
GLASSBORO, N.J. - (AP) — A former Rowan University affirmative action officer is suing the school, claiming he was the victim of discrimination.
Richard Williams says he was demoted in 2007 then forced to retire the next year after he testified against the university in a discrimination case eight years ago.
In his suit, Williams, who is black, says he attempted to retract a retirement notice, but was denied.
Full Story: http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/ex-affirmative-action-officer-sues-rowan-1.2551972
Monday, December 6, 2010
Scrub, Inc. To Pay $3 Million To Settle EEOC Racial Discrimination Suit
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
11-9-10
Chicago Janitorial Services Company Failed to Recruit and Hire African Americans, Federal Agency Charged
CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced this morning that a federal magistrate judge in Chicago has today entered a $3 million consent decree ending litigation by the EEOC against a janitorial services company, Scrub, Inc. of Chicago.
The EEOC’s lawsuit, which was filed June 19, 2009, charged that Scrub had failed to recruit African-American applicants and failed to hire black applicants for entry-level janitorial positions. Scrub is a privately held company which holds contracts to provide janitorial services at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.
The EEOC brought its lawsuit after its administrative investigation revealed that substantial numbers of African-Americans were applying to Scrub, but being denied the opportunity to work because of racial discrimination. The investigation revealed that Scrub relied on a subjective decision-making process without clear objective criteria for hiring employees.
In addition to providing for the distribution of $3 million in monetary relief to victims of discrimination, the consent decree requires significant injunctive relief. The decree prohibits the company from discriminating in the future and mandates the hiring of certain claimants who still want jobs at Scrub. The EEOC said that approximately 550 African-American applicants may receive relief under the decree.
“Stopping race discrimination in hiring is one of the basic objectives the EEOC was created to address 45 years ago,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “Unfortunately, there is a continuing need for law enforcement work in this area. The consent decree in Scrub makes a very important contribution to that work, by providing job opportunities to qualified applicants who were denied them in the past, and requiring that the company take steps to reform its hiring practices in the future.”
John Rowe, director of the EEOC Chicago District Office, said, “We are pleased that this case was able to be resolved with Scrub. The consent decree will ensure that the federal laws against discrimination are followed and that all future applicants, regardless of their race or national origin, will be given the consideration that they deserve.”
The decree has additional measures to prevent discrimination including that Scrub revise its hiring policy, use its best efforts to reach certain hiring goals of African-Americans, train its human resource staff on the law prohibiting race discrimination, and hire an outside monitor to review its compliance with the decree. Scrub is also required to increase its recruitment efforts in the African-American community.
John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the Chicago District Office, said, “The EEOC continues to vigorously protect the rights of the American worker to be free from discrimination. These rights extend to applicants for open positions. Especially in these tough economic times, companies must ensure that applicants are considered based on their merit and not their race or national origin.”
The consent decree was entered this morning by Magistrate Judge Susan Cox of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. The EEOC’s lawsuit, EEOC v. Scrub, Inc., N.D. Illinois No 09-Cv-4228, was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after the agency exhausted its efforts to voluntarily conciliate the matter with the company.
In addition to Hendrickson, EEOC is represented by Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason and Trial Attorneys Laurie Elkin, Ann Henry and Brandi Davis. The EEOC Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-9-10c.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
11-9-10
Chicago Janitorial Services Company Failed to Recruit and Hire African Americans, Federal Agency Charged
CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced this morning that a federal magistrate judge in Chicago has today entered a $3 million consent decree ending litigation by the EEOC against a janitorial services company, Scrub, Inc. of Chicago.
The EEOC’s lawsuit, which was filed June 19, 2009, charged that Scrub had failed to recruit African-American applicants and failed to hire black applicants for entry-level janitorial positions. Scrub is a privately held company which holds contracts to provide janitorial services at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.
The EEOC brought its lawsuit after its administrative investigation revealed that substantial numbers of African-Americans were applying to Scrub, but being denied the opportunity to work because of racial discrimination. The investigation revealed that Scrub relied on a subjective decision-making process without clear objective criteria for hiring employees.
In addition to providing for the distribution of $3 million in monetary relief to victims of discrimination, the consent decree requires significant injunctive relief. The decree prohibits the company from discriminating in the future and mandates the hiring of certain claimants who still want jobs at Scrub. The EEOC said that approximately 550 African-American applicants may receive relief under the decree.
“Stopping race discrimination in hiring is one of the basic objectives the EEOC was created to address 45 years ago,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “Unfortunately, there is a continuing need for law enforcement work in this area. The consent decree in Scrub makes a very important contribution to that work, by providing job opportunities to qualified applicants who were denied them in the past, and requiring that the company take steps to reform its hiring practices in the future.”
John Rowe, director of the EEOC Chicago District Office, said, “We are pleased that this case was able to be resolved with Scrub. The consent decree will ensure that the federal laws against discrimination are followed and that all future applicants, regardless of their race or national origin, will be given the consideration that they deserve.”
The decree has additional measures to prevent discrimination including that Scrub revise its hiring policy, use its best efforts to reach certain hiring goals of African-Americans, train its human resource staff on the law prohibiting race discrimination, and hire an outside monitor to review its compliance with the decree. Scrub is also required to increase its recruitment efforts in the African-American community.
John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the Chicago District Office, said, “The EEOC continues to vigorously protect the rights of the American worker to be free from discrimination. These rights extend to applicants for open positions. Especially in these tough economic times, companies must ensure that applicants are considered based on their merit and not their race or national origin.”
The consent decree was entered this morning by Magistrate Judge Susan Cox of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. The EEOC’s lawsuit, EEOC v. Scrub, Inc., N.D. Illinois No 09-Cv-4228, was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after the agency exhausted its efforts to voluntarily conciliate the matter with the company.
In addition to Hendrickson, EEOC is represented by Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason and Trial Attorneys Laurie Elkin, Ann Henry and Brandi Davis. The EEOC Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-9-10c.cfm
Monday, November 29, 2010
US Department of Labor sues Meyer Tool Inc. for systemic discrimination against African-Americans
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
News Release
OFCCP News Release: [11/23/2010]
Contact Name: Rhonda Burke or Scott Allen
Phone Number: (312) 353-6976
Release Number: 10-1605-CHI
Complaint seeks remedies for affected machinist applicants
CINCINNATI - The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has filed an administrative complaint against Meyer Tool Inc., a federal contractor that manufactures engine parts for the aerospace industry. The suit alleges that Meyer Tool systematically rejected African-American job applicants who sought entry-level machinist positions at its plant in Cincinnati.
The complaint was filed today with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges in Washington, D.C., after OFCCP was unable to secure a fair resolution from Meyer Tool during conciliation efforts with the company.
This defendant has a contractual obligation to provide equal employment opportunity," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "The company failed to meet that obligation. So we will enforce the law and hold Meyer Tool accountable to the fair and reasonable standard that it not discriminate against any group of workers.
The company's discriminatory practices and recordkeeping violations were discovered by OFCCP during a scheduled review to determine the company's compliance with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race when making hiring decisions. OFCCP's investigation revealed that Meyer Tool failed to implement an internal audit and reporting system to ensure nondiscriminatory policies were carried out as required by law; retain employment applications for the required two-year period; implement an applicant tracking system to determine selection disparities; and develop action-oriented programs to address the adverse impact against African-Americans in the machinist job group.
The complaint seeks a court order requiring Meyer Tool Inc. to hire at least 14 African-American applicants from the affected class list and to provide them with lost wages and retroactive seniority. Should the company fail to provide such relief and remedy its violations, OFCCP believes Meyer Tool should face cancellation of its existing government contracts and debarment from entering into future ones.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP's legal authority exists under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. As amended, these three laws prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of gender, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For more information, call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251. Additional information is available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp.
Solis v. Meyer Tool Inc.Case Number: 2011-OFC-3
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/OFCCPNews/LatestNews.htm#news1
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
News Release
OFCCP News Release: [11/23/2010]
Contact Name: Rhonda Burke or Scott Allen
Phone Number: (312) 353-6976
Release Number: 10-1605-CHI
Complaint seeks remedies for affected machinist applicants
CINCINNATI - The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has filed an administrative complaint against Meyer Tool Inc., a federal contractor that manufactures engine parts for the aerospace industry. The suit alleges that Meyer Tool systematically rejected African-American job applicants who sought entry-level machinist positions at its plant in Cincinnati.
The complaint was filed today with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges in Washington, D.C., after OFCCP was unable to secure a fair resolution from Meyer Tool during conciliation efforts with the company.
This defendant has a contractual obligation to provide equal employment opportunity," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "The company failed to meet that obligation. So we will enforce the law and hold Meyer Tool accountable to the fair and reasonable standard that it not discriminate against any group of workers.
The company's discriminatory practices and recordkeeping violations were discovered by OFCCP during a scheduled review to determine the company's compliance with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race when making hiring decisions. OFCCP's investigation revealed that Meyer Tool failed to implement an internal audit and reporting system to ensure nondiscriminatory policies were carried out as required by law; retain employment applications for the required two-year period; implement an applicant tracking system to determine selection disparities; and develop action-oriented programs to address the adverse impact against African-Americans in the machinist job group.
The complaint seeks a court order requiring Meyer Tool Inc. to hire at least 14 African-American applicants from the affected class list and to provide them with lost wages and retroactive seniority. Should the company fail to provide such relief and remedy its violations, OFCCP believes Meyer Tool should face cancellation of its existing government contracts and debarment from entering into future ones.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP's legal authority exists under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. As amended, these three laws prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of gender, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For more information, call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251. Additional information is available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp.
Solis v. Meyer Tool Inc.Case Number: 2011-OFC-3
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/OFCCPNews/LatestNews.htm#news1
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Feds Investigate Treatment of Minorities in Toledo Schools
Education Week
Published Online: October 26, 2010
By Christopher D. Kirkpatrick, The Blade, Toledo, Ohio
The U.S. Department of Education confirmed Monday it's investigating whether Toledo Public Schools distributes its resources in a fair way to black students for career development and college preparation.
Several groups of parents, alleging discrimination against black students, filed a complaint early last year with the federal agency's Office for Civil Rights in Cleveland.
Full Story: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/10/26/384023ohtoledoschoolsbiasprobe_ap.html?tkn=LQUFmc0WknUmjtlVdyEvjcj8EvuaHtHHQ3E0&cmp=clp-edweek
Published Online: October 26, 2010
By Christopher D. Kirkpatrick, The Blade, Toledo, Ohio
The U.S. Department of Education confirmed Monday it's investigating whether Toledo Public Schools distributes its resources in a fair way to black students for career development and college preparation.
Several groups of parents, alleging discrimination against black students, filed a complaint early last year with the federal agency's Office for Civil Rights in Cleveland.
Full Story: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/10/26/384023ohtoledoschoolsbiasprobe_ap.html?tkn=LQUFmc0WknUmjtlVdyEvjcj8EvuaHtHHQ3E0&cmp=clp-edweek
Monday, October 4, 2010
Black Workers, Applicants Allege Discrimination by Iowa
Workforce.com
The lawsuit alleges disparate-impact or adverse-impact discrimination in hiring and promotions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law.
September 30, 2010
A state judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit in which Iowa is accused of discriminating against black state workers and applicants.
The plaintiffs and the state both sought class-action certification.
In an order issued September 29, Judge Robert J. Blink ruled that the lawsuit brought by 32 current or former black state employees qualifies as a class action.
“The court finds that joint or common interest exists among members of this class, that common questions of law and/or fact predominate over any question affecting only individual members, that certification of this class offers the most appropriate means of adjudicating the class claim and defenses and that management of this class does not pose unusual difficulties,” Blink said in his order.
The lawsuit alleges disparate-impact or adverse-impact discrimination in hiring and promotions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/black-workers-applicants-allege-discrimination-by-iowa.php
The lawsuit alleges disparate-impact or adverse-impact discrimination in hiring and promotions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law.
September 30, 2010
A state judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit in which Iowa is accused of discriminating against black state workers and applicants.
The plaintiffs and the state both sought class-action certification.
In an order issued September 29, Judge Robert J. Blink ruled that the lawsuit brought by 32 current or former black state employees qualifies as a class action.
“The court finds that joint or common interest exists among members of this class, that common questions of law and/or fact predominate over any question affecting only individual members, that certification of this class offers the most appropriate means of adjudicating the class claim and defenses and that management of this class does not pose unusual difficulties,” Blink said in his order.
The lawsuit alleges disparate-impact or adverse-impact discrimination in hiring and promotions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/black-workers-applicants-allege-discrimination-by-iowa.php
Monday, September 27, 2010
EEOC Sues DHL for Segregating Employees by Race
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
9-24-10
Delivery Giant Unlawfully Assigned Drivers to Assignments and Neighborhoods Based on Race, Federal Agency Charged
CHICAGO - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today filed a race discrimination lawsuit against DHL Express, Inc. on behalf of a class of African-American employees who were given different job assignments because of their race. The EEOC received more than 20 charges of discrimination against DHL alleging that the shipping and delivery giant discriminated against black workers.
The EEOC's administrative investigation was conducted under the supervision of Chicago District Director John Rowe, who said that the EEOC's investigation found that DHL assigned black drivers to predominately black neighborhoods and white drivers to predominately white neighborhoods. “While this may not have been obvious to employees at first, over time, a pattern of segregation emerged,” said Rowe.
The EEOC's administrative investigation also found that DHL assigned more difficult and dangerous work to black employees than white employees. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, added, “Any employer who gives different work assignments to employees simply because of the color of their skin, sends a message to all of its employees that it is by no means colorblind. The concept of 'separate but equal' has long since been rejected. It has absolutely no place on the job. Everyone should understand that federal law -- Title VII -- expressly forbids the segregation of employees. In this case, as with all of our other cases, the EEOC is looking to ensure that all employees can work in an environment free of discrimination."
The case, captioned EEOC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on September 24, 2010 and has been designated Civil Action No. 10 C 6139. The government's litigation effort will be led by EEOC Trial Attorney Aaron DeCamp and Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.
DHL is part of Bonn, Germany-based Deutsche Post DHL, which, according to company information, generated revenue of more than $62 billion (currently about 46 billion Euros) in 2009, and calls itself "the global market leader in the logistics industry."
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with area offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-24-10b.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
9-24-10
Delivery Giant Unlawfully Assigned Drivers to Assignments and Neighborhoods Based on Race, Federal Agency Charged
CHICAGO - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today filed a race discrimination lawsuit against DHL Express, Inc. on behalf of a class of African-American employees who were given different job assignments because of their race. The EEOC received more than 20 charges of discrimination against DHL alleging that the shipping and delivery giant discriminated against black workers.
The EEOC's administrative investigation was conducted under the supervision of Chicago District Director John Rowe, who said that the EEOC's investigation found that DHL assigned black drivers to predominately black neighborhoods and white drivers to predominately white neighborhoods. “While this may not have been obvious to employees at first, over time, a pattern of segregation emerged,” said Rowe.
The EEOC's administrative investigation also found that DHL assigned more difficult and dangerous work to black employees than white employees. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, added, “Any employer who gives different work assignments to employees simply because of the color of their skin, sends a message to all of its employees that it is by no means colorblind. The concept of 'separate but equal' has long since been rejected. It has absolutely no place on the job. Everyone should understand that federal law -- Title VII -- expressly forbids the segregation of employees. In this case, as with all of our other cases, the EEOC is looking to ensure that all employees can work in an environment free of discrimination."
The case, captioned EEOC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on September 24, 2010 and has been designated Civil Action No. 10 C 6139. The government's litigation effort will be led by EEOC Trial Attorney Aaron DeCamp and Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.
DHL is part of Bonn, Germany-based Deutsche Post DHL, which, according to company information, generated revenue of more than $62 billion (currently about 46 billion Euros) in 2009, and calls itself "the global market leader in the logistics industry."
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with area offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-24-10b.cfm
Monday, September 20, 2010
Chapman University Sued For Race Discrimination
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
9-20-10
Black Professor Was Denied Tenure, Then Discharged Because of Race, EEOC Charges
SAN DIEGO – Chapman University, a private university in Orange, Calif., violated federal law when it denied tenure to and then discharged a black professor due to her race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
The university hired the professor in 2001 as an assistant professor of marketing for the George L. Argyros School of Business & Economics (ASBE). Despite strong recommendations in her favor by professional peers both inside and outside of Chapman University, a review committee denied the professor’s application for tenure and promotion to the position of associate professor in October 2006. Chapman’s board of trustees ultimately denied her tenure appeal and effectively discharged her in June 2008. The EEOC contends that non-black professors were promoted despite the alleged victim’s superior record in teaching, scholarship and/or service to the university and her profession. At the time of her application for tenure, the alleged victim was the sole black faculty member in a department of approximately 30.
The EEOC filed its suit against Chapman University in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division (EEOC v. Chapman University and the Board of Trustees of Chapman University, Case No. SACV10-1419-CJC ( RNBx)), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. According to the EEOC, the alleged acts of discrimination violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and front pay on behalf of the alleged victim, along with injunctive relief intended to prevent future race discrimination at the university.
“Although this country has made great strides in addressing race discrimination, racial barriers still persist,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Denying upward mobility to qualified minorities while promoting less qualified non-minorities exacerbates the glass ceiling that continues to ail the American workplace.”
Marla Stern, local director of the EEOC’s San Diego Local Office, said, “Situations like this, with apparent favoritism for less qualified non-blacks over well-qualified African-Americans, are not only unfair to the direct victims, they are counter-productive to the organization and help perpetuate injustice in our country. The EEOC will continue to fight such damaging discrimination.”
Founded in 1861, Chapman University is a private, non-profit university with programs in seven schools and colleges, and an enrollment of approximately 6,000 undergraduate, graduate and law students.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-20-10c.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
9-20-10
Black Professor Was Denied Tenure, Then Discharged Because of Race, EEOC Charges
SAN DIEGO – Chapman University, a private university in Orange, Calif., violated federal law when it denied tenure to and then discharged a black professor due to her race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
The university hired the professor in 2001 as an assistant professor of marketing for the George L. Argyros School of Business & Economics (ASBE). Despite strong recommendations in her favor by professional peers both inside and outside of Chapman University, a review committee denied the professor’s application for tenure and promotion to the position of associate professor in October 2006. Chapman’s board of trustees ultimately denied her tenure appeal and effectively discharged her in June 2008. The EEOC contends that non-black professors were promoted despite the alleged victim’s superior record in teaching, scholarship and/or service to the university and her profession. At the time of her application for tenure, the alleged victim was the sole black faculty member in a department of approximately 30.
The EEOC filed its suit against Chapman University in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division (EEOC v. Chapman University and the Board of Trustees of Chapman University, Case No. SACV10-1419-CJC ( RNBx)), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. According to the EEOC, the alleged acts of discrimination violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and front pay on behalf of the alleged victim, along with injunctive relief intended to prevent future race discrimination at the university.
“Although this country has made great strides in addressing race discrimination, racial barriers still persist,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Denying upward mobility to qualified minorities while promoting less qualified non-minorities exacerbates the glass ceiling that continues to ail the American workplace.”
Marla Stern, local director of the EEOC’s San Diego Local Office, said, “Situations like this, with apparent favoritism for less qualified non-blacks over well-qualified African-Americans, are not only unfair to the direct victims, they are counter-productive to the organization and help perpetuate injustice in our country. The EEOC will continue to fight such damaging discrimination.”
Founded in 1861, Chapman University is a private, non-profit university with programs in seven schools and colleges, and an enrollment of approximately 6,000 undergraduate, graduate and law students.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-20-10c.cfm
Friday, June 11, 2010
US Department of Labor settles hiring discrimination case with The Wackenhut Corp. in Aurora, Colo.
News Release
OFCCP News Release: [06/09/2010]Contact Name: Rich Kulczewski
Phone Number: (303) 844-1302
Release Number: 10-0736-DEN
US Department of Labor settles hiring discrimination case with The Wackenhut Corp. in Aurora, Colo.
Company agrees to pay $290,000 to 446 African-American job applicants
DENVER — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has announced that The Wackenhut Corp., doing business as G4S Wackenhut, has entered into a consent decree to settle findings of hiring discrimination at its Aurora, Colo., facility. The consent decree settles OFCCP's allegations that Wackenhut engaged in hiring discrimination against 446 rejected African-American applicants for the position of traditional security officer for a two-year period. Wackenhut is headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.
"The department is committed to ensuring that federal contractors and subcontractors hire, promote and compensate their employees fairly, without respect to their race, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion or veteran status," said Patricia A. Shiu, director of OFCCP, who is based in Washington, D.C. "This settlement of $290,000 in back pay on behalf of 446 African-Americans should put all federal contractors on notice that the Labor Department is serious about eliminating systemic discrimination."
OFCCP investigators found that the company engaged in hiring discrimination against African-Americans from Jan. 1, 2002, through Dec. 31, 2003. Under the terms of the consent decree and order, filed with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges, Wackenhut will pay a total of $290,000 in back pay and interest to the 446 rejected African-American applicants and will hire 41 of the applicants into traditional security officer positions. The company also agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure that all hiring practices fully comply with the law and will immediately correct any discriminatory practice. In addition, Wackenhut will ensure compliance with Executive Order 11246 recordkeeping requirements.
"We strongly encourage other employers to take proactive steps to come into compliance with the law to prevent workplace discrimination," said Melissa Speer, OFCCP acting director of OFCCP's Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regions, who is located in Dallas.
OFCCP, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, enforces Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 that prohibit employment discrimination by federal contractors. The agency monitors federal contractors to ensure that they provide equal employment opportunities without regard to race, gender, color, religion, national origin, disability or veteran status.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/ofccp20100736.htm
OFCCP News Release: [06/09/2010]Contact Name: Rich Kulczewski
Phone Number: (303) 844-1302
Release Number: 10-0736-DEN
US Department of Labor settles hiring discrimination case with The Wackenhut Corp. in Aurora, Colo.
Company agrees to pay $290,000 to 446 African-American job applicants
DENVER — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has announced that The Wackenhut Corp., doing business as G4S Wackenhut, has entered into a consent decree to settle findings of hiring discrimination at its Aurora, Colo., facility. The consent decree settles OFCCP's allegations that Wackenhut engaged in hiring discrimination against 446 rejected African-American applicants for the position of traditional security officer for a two-year period. Wackenhut is headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.
"The department is committed to ensuring that federal contractors and subcontractors hire, promote and compensate their employees fairly, without respect to their race, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion or veteran status," said Patricia A. Shiu, director of OFCCP, who is based in Washington, D.C. "This settlement of $290,000 in back pay on behalf of 446 African-Americans should put all federal contractors on notice that the Labor Department is serious about eliminating systemic discrimination."
OFCCP investigators found that the company engaged in hiring discrimination against African-Americans from Jan. 1, 2002, through Dec. 31, 2003. Under the terms of the consent decree and order, filed with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges, Wackenhut will pay a total of $290,000 in back pay and interest to the 446 rejected African-American applicants and will hire 41 of the applicants into traditional security officer positions. The company also agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure that all hiring practices fully comply with the law and will immediately correct any discriminatory practice. In addition, Wackenhut will ensure compliance with Executive Order 11246 recordkeeping requirements.
"We strongly encourage other employers to take proactive steps to come into compliance with the law to prevent workplace discrimination," said Melissa Speer, OFCCP acting director of OFCCP's Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regions, who is located in Dallas.
OFCCP, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, enforces Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 that prohibit employment discrimination by federal contractors. The agency monitors federal contractors to ensure that they provide equal employment opportunities without regard to race, gender, color, religion, national origin, disability or veteran status.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/ofccp20100736.htm
Monday, May 24, 2010
NAACP Legal Defense Fund Succeeds in Defending Rights of 6,000 African-American Applicants for Chicago Firefighter Jobs
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
News Release
May 24th, 2010
News Release
May 24th, 2010
NAACP Legal Defense Fund Succeeds in Defending Rights of 6,000 African-American Applicants for Chicago Firefighter Jobs
The Supreme Court unanimously rejects Chicago's attempt to avoid accountability for hiring discrimination
(New York, NY) - After years fighting for justice, qualified African-American job applicants will finally have a fair opportunity to land a job with the Chicago fire department. Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the City of Chicago can be held accountable for each and every time it used a hiring practice that arbitrarily blocked qualified minority applicants from employment.
"Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality," said John Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., (LDF) who argued the case before the Court this past February. "This victory goes well beyond the immediate results in Chicago. It should ensure that no other fire department or employer uses a discriminatory test, and LDF will go the extra mile to make sure that they do not."
The only issue in the case, Lewis v. the City of Chicago,was whether or not the plaintiffs filed their claims of discrimination within the time frame required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - the nation's core equal employment law. Between 1996 and 2002, the City of Chicago hired more than 1,000 firefighters using the results of a test in a manner that unjustifiably excluded qualified African-American applicants. Although the City knew this from the outset, it used the test results for the next six years to hire eleven disproportionately white firefighter classes. After a federal district court found that the City's hiring practice was discriminatory and violated Title VII, the City did not appeal. Instead, the City tried to escape liability for its illegal hiring practice by arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred because they did not file their claims within 300 days after the City first announced its hiring plan. Vindicating LDF's arguments, the Court held that the City discriminated each and every time it hired firefighters and, therefore, the plaintiffs' claims were timely.
"I am happy to know that the thousands of qualified firefighters who were denied a fair shot at a job with our department will finally have an opportunity to join our ranks in service to the people of Chicago," said Greg Boggs, President of the African American Firefighters & Paramedics League of Chicago.
LDF represents the Lewis plaintiffs with co-counsel from the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.; Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & Dym Ltd.; the Law Office of Patrick O. Patterson, S.C.; Robinson, Curley & Clayton, P.C.; and solo practitioner Bridget Arimond.
###
ABOUT LDF
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) is America's legal counsel on issues of race. Through advocacy and litigation, LDF focuses on issues of education, voter protection, economic justice and criminal justice. We encourage students to embark on careers in the public interest through scholarships and internship programs. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejects Chicago's attempt to avoid accountability for hiring discrimination
(New York, NY) - After years fighting for justice, qualified African-American job applicants will finally have a fair opportunity to land a job with the Chicago fire department. Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the City of Chicago can be held accountable for each and every time it used a hiring practice that arbitrarily blocked qualified minority applicants from employment.
"Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality," said John Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., (LDF) who argued the case before the Court this past February. "This victory goes well beyond the immediate results in Chicago. It should ensure that no other fire department or employer uses a discriminatory test, and LDF will go the extra mile to make sure that they do not."
The only issue in the case, Lewis v. the City of Chicago,was whether or not the plaintiffs filed their claims of discrimination within the time frame required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - the nation's core equal employment law. Between 1996 and 2002, the City of Chicago hired more than 1,000 firefighters using the results of a test in a manner that unjustifiably excluded qualified African-American applicants. Although the City knew this from the outset, it used the test results for the next six years to hire eleven disproportionately white firefighter classes. After a federal district court found that the City's hiring practice was discriminatory and violated Title VII, the City did not appeal. Instead, the City tried to escape liability for its illegal hiring practice by arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred because they did not file their claims within 300 days after the City first announced its hiring plan. Vindicating LDF's arguments, the Court held that the City discriminated each and every time it hired firefighters and, therefore, the plaintiffs' claims were timely.
"I am happy to know that the thousands of qualified firefighters who were denied a fair shot at a job with our department will finally have an opportunity to join our ranks in service to the people of Chicago," said Greg Boggs, President of the African American Firefighters & Paramedics League of Chicago.
LDF represents the Lewis plaintiffs with co-counsel from the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.; Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & Dym Ltd.; the Law Office of Patrick O. Patterson, S.C.; Robinson, Curley & Clayton, P.C.; and solo practitioner Bridget Arimond.
###
ABOUT LDF
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) is America's legal counsel on issues of race. Through advocacy and litigation, LDF focuses on issues of education, voter protection, economic justice and criminal justice. We encourage students to embark on careers in the public interest through scholarships and internship programs. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Court Considers Time Limits on Employment Discrimination Suits
Workforce Management
February 23, 2010
Supreme Court justices appeared sympathetic to an argument that an employer can be sued for racial discrimination each time it bases hiring decisions on the results of a flawed employment test, during a Monday, February 22, oral argument.
In the case before the court, a group of 6,000 African-American applicants for entry-level firefighter positions filed a suit against the city of Chicago regarding an exam that excluded the vast majority of them from consideration.
In January 1996, the city sent a letter to everyone who participated in the evaluations, saying that only those in the “well qualified” category would be hired. Those who were deemed “qualified” or lower would not get a job offer because so many people scored higher on the exam.
Only 11.5 percent of the African Americans were in the “well qualified” category, even though they represented 37 percent of the test takers. They filed suit on March 31, 1997, or 430 days after the city announced the results.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/27/01/98.php
February 23, 2010
Supreme Court justices appeared sympathetic to an argument that an employer can be sued for racial discrimination each time it bases hiring decisions on the results of a flawed employment test, during a Monday, February 22, oral argument.
In the case before the court, a group of 6,000 African-American applicants for entry-level firefighter positions filed a suit against the city of Chicago regarding an exam that excluded the vast majority of them from consideration.
In January 1996, the city sent a letter to everyone who participated in the evaluations, saying that only those in the “well qualified” category would be hired. Those who were deemed “qualified” or lower would not get a job offer because so many people scored higher on the exam.
Only 11.5 percent of the African Americans were in the “well qualified” category, even though they represented 37 percent of the test takers. They filed suit on March 31, 1997, or 430 days after the city announced the results.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/27/01/98.php
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Following US Labor Department investigation, administrative law judge finds Bank of America discriminated against African-American job applicants
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
OFCCP News Release: [02/02/2010]
Contact Name: Michael D’Aquino, Michael Wald, Jesse Lawder or Mike Volpe
Phone Number: (404) 562-2076 or (202) 693-4676
Release Number: 10-0126-ATL
WASHINGTON — A protracted case that started with a U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) investigation has resulted in an administrative law judge's (ALJ) recommended ruling that Bank of America discriminated against African-American job applicants for entry level positions in Charlotte, N.C., in 1993 and from 2002 to 2005.
"The Labor Department is committed to ensuring that all workers — including African-Americans — are treated fairly by federal contractors in decisions concerning hiring, promotion and compensation," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "Further, contractors cannot use litigation as a means to obstruct OFCCP's ability to conduct its authorized investigations and pursue relief for victims of discrimination."
The ruling by ALJ Linda Chapman arises in a case that began in 1993 when OFCCP requested information from NationsBank (the bank's previous name) as part of a compliance review to determine if the bank, as a federal government contractor, treated its employees without discrimination as required by Executive Order 11246. After OFCCP advised the bank in 1995 of its findings of discrimination, the bank challenged — in federal court — OFCCP's authority to conduct the review as a violation of the bank's Fourth Amendment rights. After the challenge failed and Labor Department attorneys filed an administrative complaint, the bank pursued that challenge in the administrative forum. The department's Administrative Review Board ruled in 2003 that if the bank had consented to the review, there was no Fourth Amendment violation. The ALJ subsequently held that the bank had, in fact, consented, and department attorneys were able to address the discrimination claims.
After that hearing, ALJ Chapman held that the bank intentionally discriminated against African-American clerical, administrative and teller applicants at its Charlotte facility. The ALJ also held that the bank's failure to retain records as required by law without justification did not lessen the statistical disparities found by OFCCP's expert. Chapman now will hold a hearing to determine what remedies should be provided by the bank. After the ALJ issues a recommended decision on a remedy, the case will proceed to the department's Administrative Review Board for a final agency decision.
OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), 38 U.S.C. 4212, that prohibit employment discrimination by federal contractors. The agency monitors federal contractors to ensure that they provide equal employment opportunities without regard to race, gender, color, religion, national origin, disability or veteran status. Information is available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
OFCCP News Release: [02/02/2010]
Contact Name: Michael D’Aquino, Michael Wald, Jesse Lawder or Mike Volpe
Phone Number: (404) 562-2076 or (202) 693-4676
Release Number: 10-0126-ATL
WASHINGTON — A protracted case that started with a U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) investigation has resulted in an administrative law judge's (ALJ) recommended ruling that Bank of America discriminated against African-American job applicants for entry level positions in Charlotte, N.C., in 1993 and from 2002 to 2005.
"The Labor Department is committed to ensuring that all workers — including African-Americans — are treated fairly by federal contractors in decisions concerning hiring, promotion and compensation," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "Further, contractors cannot use litigation as a means to obstruct OFCCP's ability to conduct its authorized investigations and pursue relief for victims of discrimination."
The ruling by ALJ Linda Chapman arises in a case that began in 1993 when OFCCP requested information from NationsBank (the bank's previous name) as part of a compliance review to determine if the bank, as a federal government contractor, treated its employees without discrimination as required by Executive Order 11246. After OFCCP advised the bank in 1995 of its findings of discrimination, the bank challenged — in federal court — OFCCP's authority to conduct the review as a violation of the bank's Fourth Amendment rights. After the challenge failed and Labor Department attorneys filed an administrative complaint, the bank pursued that challenge in the administrative forum. The department's Administrative Review Board ruled in 2003 that if the bank had consented to the review, there was no Fourth Amendment violation. The ALJ subsequently held that the bank had, in fact, consented, and department attorneys were able to address the discrimination claims.
After that hearing, ALJ Chapman held that the bank intentionally discriminated against African-American clerical, administrative and teller applicants at its Charlotte facility. The ALJ also held that the bank's failure to retain records as required by law without justification did not lessen the statistical disparities found by OFCCP's expert. Chapman now will hold a hearing to determine what remedies should be provided by the bank. After the ALJ issues a recommended decision on a remedy, the case will proceed to the department's Administrative Review Board for a final agency decision.
OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), 38 U.S.C. 4212, that prohibit employment discrimination by federal contractors. The agency monitors federal contractors to ensure that they provide equal employment opportunities without regard to race, gender, color, religion, national origin, disability or veteran status. Information is available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Historic Victory: Court Rules FDNY Hiring Practices Intentionally Discriminated on the Basis of Race for Decades
Center for Constitutional Rights
Contact: press@ccrjustice.org
January 13, 2010, New York, NY – Today, United States District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit charging the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) with intentionally racially discriminatory hiring practices. The case, which proved the FDNY examination was in violation of civil rights laws, was filed on behalf of the Vulcan Society, the fraternal organization of Black firefighters in the FDNY by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel from Levy Ratner, P.C. and Scott + Scott, LLP. An earlier win in the case on July 22, 2009, ruled that the impact of the test was racially discriminatory, but today’s summary ruling of intentional discrimination is far more rare.In today’s ruling, Judge Garaufis found the City of New York had excluded Blacks and Hispanics from the Fire Department for decades, since the 1960’s, and called it “a persistent stain on the Fire Department’s record.” Said Richard Levy of Levy Ratner, P.C., CCR cooperating attorney and lead counsel in the case, “This decision represents a major victory for all minority citizens of New York City who have been denied employment because of their race, color or national origin. But it is a particular vindication for the Vulcan Society, the Black organization of firefighters that has been waging this struggle for equality for more than forty years. The City has kept blinders tightly in place to avoid recognizing and dealing with a problem of discrimination that has been shockingly clear to all citizens of New York. The Fire Department has been a virtually all White club since its inception many decades ago and no one in City government has seen fit to address the issue. Now it must.” Said CCR Attorney Anjana Samant, “This is an historic victory that will force the City to be accountable for decades of unchecked intentional discrimination in the FDNY. While people have been clamoring for firehouses to be more representative of their communities for years, this ruling demands that the City clean up its mess and fashion programs and remedies to correct the past effects of its discriminatory hiring process.” Said Paul Washington, past president of the Vulcan Society, “We’re glad to see the justice system verify what we’ve known for the longest time, that the Fire Department is hostile to hiring blacks. We hope this means 145 years of racism in the New York City Fire Dept will now come to an end.” As of October 2007, black and Hispanic firefighters comprised only 3.4 and 6.7 percent of the FDNY, respectively. The combined black and Hispanic population of New York City comprises over half its total population. New York City has the least diverse fire department of any major city in America; 57 percent of Los Angeles, 51 percent of Philadelphia and 40 percent of Boston firefighters are people of color. At the same time, the New York City Police Department has recruited a force that is roughly fifty percent (50%) minority and fully represents the demographics of the City. In April 2009, plaintiffs asked Judge Garaufis to grant summary judgment in favor of the Vulcan Society, the fraternal organization of Black firefighters in the FDNY, and three individual candidates in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting their claims, thus eliminating the need for a trial. CCR, Levy Ratner, and Scott + Scott formally filed to intervene on behalf of the Vulcan Society in the Department of Justice's lawsuit against the City of New York for discriminatory hiring practices in July 2007. The lawsuit grew out of two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filings by CCR on behalf of the Vulcan Society in 2002 and 2005. The intervention allowed the Vulcan Society to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff. To read the ruling or for more information on the case, see CCR's Vulcan Society case page. Levy Ratner, P.C. has advocated for unions and workers for more than 35 years in the areas of union-side labor law, employee benefits, bankruptcy, campaign finance, election law and plaintiffs’ employment law.
Watch CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren and Vulcan Society's Paul Washington on NY1's segment on this landmark ruling (this link will end your session at http://www.ccrjustice.org/)
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/victory-black-firefighters%2C-fdny-hiring-practices-ruled-racially-discriminat
Contact: press@ccrjustice.org
January 13, 2010, New York, NY – Today, United States District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit charging the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) with intentionally racially discriminatory hiring practices. The case, which proved the FDNY examination was in violation of civil rights laws, was filed on behalf of the Vulcan Society, the fraternal organization of Black firefighters in the FDNY by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel from Levy Ratner, P.C. and Scott + Scott, LLP. An earlier win in the case on July 22, 2009, ruled that the impact of the test was racially discriminatory, but today’s summary ruling of intentional discrimination is far more rare.In today’s ruling, Judge Garaufis found the City of New York had excluded Blacks and Hispanics from the Fire Department for decades, since the 1960’s, and called it “a persistent stain on the Fire Department’s record.” Said Richard Levy of Levy Ratner, P.C., CCR cooperating attorney and lead counsel in the case, “This decision represents a major victory for all minority citizens of New York City who have been denied employment because of their race, color or national origin. But it is a particular vindication for the Vulcan Society, the Black organization of firefighters that has been waging this struggle for equality for more than forty years. The City has kept blinders tightly in place to avoid recognizing and dealing with a problem of discrimination that has been shockingly clear to all citizens of New York. The Fire Department has been a virtually all White club since its inception many decades ago and no one in City government has seen fit to address the issue. Now it must.” Said CCR Attorney Anjana Samant, “This is an historic victory that will force the City to be accountable for decades of unchecked intentional discrimination in the FDNY. While people have been clamoring for firehouses to be more representative of their communities for years, this ruling demands that the City clean up its mess and fashion programs and remedies to correct the past effects of its discriminatory hiring process.” Said Paul Washington, past president of the Vulcan Society, “We’re glad to see the justice system verify what we’ve known for the longest time, that the Fire Department is hostile to hiring blacks. We hope this means 145 years of racism in the New York City Fire Dept will now come to an end.” As of October 2007, black and Hispanic firefighters comprised only 3.4 and 6.7 percent of the FDNY, respectively. The combined black and Hispanic population of New York City comprises over half its total population. New York City has the least diverse fire department of any major city in America; 57 percent of Los Angeles, 51 percent of Philadelphia and 40 percent of Boston firefighters are people of color. At the same time, the New York City Police Department has recruited a force that is roughly fifty percent (50%) minority and fully represents the demographics of the City. In April 2009, plaintiffs asked Judge Garaufis to grant summary judgment in favor of the Vulcan Society, the fraternal organization of Black firefighters in the FDNY, and three individual candidates in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting their claims, thus eliminating the need for a trial. CCR, Levy Ratner, and Scott + Scott formally filed to intervene on behalf of the Vulcan Society in the Department of Justice's lawsuit against the City of New York for discriminatory hiring practices in July 2007. The lawsuit grew out of two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filings by CCR on behalf of the Vulcan Society in 2002 and 2005. The intervention allowed the Vulcan Society to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff. To read the ruling or for more information on the case, see CCR's Vulcan Society case page. Levy Ratner, P.C. has advocated for unions and workers for more than 35 years in the areas of union-side labor law, employee benefits, bankruptcy, campaign finance, election law and plaintiffs’ employment law.
Watch CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren and Vulcan Society's Paul Washington on NY1's segment on this landmark ruling (this link will end your session at http://www.ccrjustice.org/)
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/victory-black-firefighters%2C-fdny-hiring-practices-ruled-racially-discriminat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)