The partial roundup below is for folks who think discrimination is something way in the distant past..
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/09/1162103286/home-appraisal-racial-bias-black-homeowners-lawsuit
A black couple (Tenisha Tate-Austin and Paul Austin) got a shockingly low appraisal from a white appraiser for their home in a nice middle class neighborhood in "liberal" northern California, despite its excellent condition. They suspected bias and some time later had another appraisal with a pair of white friends standing in for the homeowners, including the use of the white couple's family pictures. For the same house, with white faces showing as owners, the subsequent appraisal increased by almost 40%. The black couple sued and won an out of court settlement. Bias in the appraisal industry is a well documented phenomenon.
A huge 2021 study by Freddie Mac, the government guarantor of home mortgages found clear bias in a survey of around 12 million appraisals nationwide, showing that even when researchers accounted for structural differences in homes and the unique characteristics of different neighborhoods, Black and Latino areas were still more likely to see lower appraisals. There was also no evidence that the disparity was caused by a small number of appraisers, the report said. (https://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20210920-home-appraisals)
A 2018 Brookings Institute study found the same overall results. (https://www.brookings.edu/research/devaluation-of-assets-in-black-neighborhoods/)
A 2018 Brookings Institute study found the same overall results. (https://www.brookings.edu/research/devaluation-of-assets-in-black-neighborhoods/)
Update 2: Article-Workplace discrimination is illegal- yet it persists.
QUOTE:
"[The] Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative newsroom in Washington, DC, analyzed eight years of complaint data from the EEOC as well as its state and local counterparts. It reviewed hundreds of court cases and interviewed dozens of people who filed EEOC claims, which are made under penalty of perjury. What emerged is a picture of a system that routinely fails workers. Complaint data obtained from the EEOC for fiscal years 2010 through 2017 — a rare window into a largely obscured problem in America’s workplaces — shows that the agency closes most cases without concluding whether discrimination occurred. Sometimes, workers’ lawyers say, an EEOC investigation involves no more than asking the employer for a response..
A key part of the issue, according to experts and former EEOC employees, is that the agency doesn’t have the resources for its mammoth task. It has a smaller budget today than it did in 1980, adjusted for inflation, and 42 percent less staff. At the same time, the country’s labor force increased about 50 percent, to 160 million... The EEOC, in short, can’t come close to fulfilling the mission Congress gave it more than 50 years ago. The agency was the Civil Rights Act’s attempt to eradicate job discrimination from a nation plagued with it, but it’s never had the money and support to do it."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/28/18241973/workplace-discrimination-cpi-investigation-eeoc
QUOTE:
"[The] Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative newsroom in Washington, DC, analyzed eight years of complaint data from the EEOC as well as its state and local counterparts. It reviewed hundreds of court cases and interviewed dozens of people who filed EEOC claims, which are made under penalty of perjury. What emerged is a picture of a system that routinely fails workers. Complaint data obtained from the EEOC for fiscal years 2010 through 2017 — a rare window into a largely obscured problem in America’s workplaces — shows that the agency closes most cases without concluding whether discrimination occurred. Sometimes, workers’ lawyers say, an EEOC investigation involves no more than asking the employer for a response..
A key part of the issue, according to experts and former EEOC employees, is that the agency doesn’t have the resources for its mammoth task. It has a smaller budget today than it did in 1980, adjusted for inflation, and 42 percent less staff. At the same time, the country’s labor force increased about 50 percent, to 160 million... The EEOC, in short, can’t come close to fulfilling the mission Congress gave it more than 50 years ago. The agency was the Civil Rights Act’s attempt to eradicate job discrimination from a nation plagued with it, but it’s never had the money and support to do it."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/28/18241973/workplace-discrimination-cpi-investigation-eeoc
EXCERPT: Significant EEOC Race-Color Cases- (Covering
Private and Federal Sectors)
In enforcing Title VII 's prohibition of race and color
discrimination, the EEOC has filed, resolved, and adjudicated a number of cases
since 1964. Under the E-RACE Initiative, the Commission continues to be focused
on the eradication of race and color discrimination from the 21st century
workplace and is seeking to retool its enforcement efforts to address
contemporary forms of overt, subtle and implicit bias. Below is an inexhaustive
list of significant EEOC private or federal sector cases from 2003 to present.
These cases illustrate some of the common, novel, systemic and emerging issues
in the realm of race and color discrimination.
Systemic discrimination cases
In December
2017, Laquila Group Inc., a Brooklyn-based construction company, paid $625,000
into a class settlement fund and took measures to eliminate race bias and
retaliation against black construction laborers. In its lawsuit, EEOC alleged
that Laquila engaged in systemic discrimination against black employees as a
class by subjecting them to racial harassment, including referring to them
using the N-word, "gorilla," and similar epithets. The Commission
also alleged that the company fired an employee who complained about the
harassment. The consent decree also requires Laquila to set up a hotline for
employees to report illegal discrimination, provide anti-discrimination
training to its managers, adopt revised anti-discrimination policies and
employee complaint procedures and report all worker harassment and retaliation
complaints to the EEOC for the 42-month duration of the agreement. EEOC v. The
Laquila Grp., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-05194 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree approved Dec. 1,
2017).
In
November 2017, after an extensive five-year, complicated systemic investigation
and settlement efforts, the EEOC reached an agreement with Lone Star Community
College covering recruitment, hiring and mentoring of African-American and
Hispanic applicants and employees. The terms of the agreement were designed to
enhance the College's commitment to the recruitment of African-American and
Hispanics and to engage in meaningful monitoring of the College's efforts to
reach its recruitment and hiring goals. The agreement included some novel
relief, such as: implementation of a new applicant tracking system;
establishing an advisory committee focused on the recruitment, development and
retention of minority groups; hiring of recruitment firms; developing new
interview protocol training; establishing a mentoring program for recently
hired minority employees; and updating job descriptions for all college manager
positions to require as a job component the diversity of its workforce.
In
August 2017, Ford Motor Company agreed to pay nearly $10.125 million to settle
sex and race harassment investigation by the EEOC at two Ford plants in Chicago
area. In its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that
personnel at two Ford facilities in the Chicago area, the Chicago Assembly
Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant, had subjected female and African-American
employees to sexual and racial harassment. The EEOC also found that the company
retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment or
discrimination. In addition to the monetary relief, the conciliation agreement
provides ensures that during the next five years, Ford will conduct regular
training at the two Chicago-area facilities; continue to disseminate its
anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and procedures to employees
and new hires; report to EEOC regarding complaints of harassment and/or related
discrimination; and monitor its workforce regarding issues of alleged sexual or
racial harassment and related discrimination.
In
July 2017, Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC agreed, without admitting wrongdoing, to
pay $10.5 million to a class of African-American and Hispanic workers the EEOC
alleged it discriminated against by failing to hire because of their race
and/or national origin in violation of Title VII . According to the consent
decree, Bass Pro will engage in good faith efforts to increase diversity by
reaching out to minority colleges and technical schools, participating in job
fairs in communities with large minority populations and post job openings in
publications popular among Black and Hispanic communities. Additionally, every
six months for the next 42 months, Bass Pro is to report to the EEOC its hiring
rates on a store-by-store basis. EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, Case No.
4:11-cv-03425 (S.D. Tex. consent decree filed July 24, 2017).
In
June 2017, the EEOC investigated a restaurant operating over 100 facilities in
the Eastern U.S. involving issues of hiring discrimination against African
Americans. The restaurant agreed to pay $9.6 million to class members as part
of a conciliation agreement. Additionally, the restaurant will overhaul its
hiring procedures and has agreed to institute practices aimed at meeting hiring
targets consistent with the labor market in each of the locations in which it
has facilities. The new hiring procedures include implementation of an
extensive applicant tracking system that will better enable the EEOC and the
company to assess whether the company is meeting the targeted hiring levels.
The restaurant will also provide an annual report to EEOC detailing the
company's efforts in complying with the agreement and its objectives over the
term of the five-year agreement, including detailed hiring assessments for each
facility covered by the agreement.
In May
2017, Rosebud Restaurants agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a race
discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against 13 restaurants in the
Chicago area. The chain was charged with refusing to hire African-American
applicants and having managers who used racial slurs to refer to
African-Americans. The monetary award will be paid to African-American
applicants who were denied jobs. Pursuant to a consent decree, the chain also
agreed to hiring goals with the aim of having 11 percent of its future workforce
be African American. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American
applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination.
EEOC v. Rosebud Rest., No. 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).
In
April 2017, Sealy of Minnesota paid $175,000 to resolve a charge of racial
harassment filed with the EEOC. An investigation by the EEOC's Minneapolis Area
Office revealed that the mattress and box spring manufacturing company in St.
Paul, Minn. subjected its Black and Hispanic employees to severe racial
harassment in the form of KKK hoods, nooses, and racial slurs and jokes. The
agency also found that the company discriminated against black and Hispanic
employees in the selection of lead positions at the St. Paul facility. EEOC v.
Sealy of Minn., (D. Minn. Apr. 20, 2017).
In
December 2016, Crothall Services Group, Inc., a nationwide provider of
janitorial and facilities management services, settled an EEOC lawsuit by
adopting significant changes to its record-keeping practices related to the use
of criminal background checks. According to the EEOC's complaint, Crothall used
criminal background checks to make hiring decisions without making and keeping
required records that disclose the impact criminal history assessments have on
persons identifiable by race, sex, or ethnic group, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1965. EEOC v. Crothall Servs. Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03812-AB
(E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016).
In
August 2016, a magistrate judge reaffirmed that "African" has long
been recognized as an acceptable class entitled to protection under Title VII . The EEOC alleged that the
Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated
against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when
it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for
failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. The EEOC brought disparate
impact and treatment claims based on race and national origin, and a
retaliation claim for a white supervisor who stood up for the African workers
and was fired several months before the test was instituted. Defendants moved
for dismissal arguing (1) Africa is not a nation and so cannot serve as the
basis of a national origin claim, (2) EEOC failed to allege any shared cultural
or linguistic characteristics between the aggrieved individuals so they could
not constitute a protected class; and (3) the EEOC's retaliation claim must be
dismissed because EEOC failed to allege protected activity or the Defendants
had knowledge of the white supervisor's motivations. The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the motion be denied in total. EEOC v. Columbine Health Sys.
& New Mercer Commons, Civ. Action No. 15-cv-01597-MSK -CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2016).
In
June 2016, the EEOC obtained a $350,000 settlement in its race discrimination
lawsuit against defendant FAPS, Inc., a company located at Port Newark, N.J.,
involved in the processing for final sale of shipped automobiles. In this case,
the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of
race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a
predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American
available workforce in the Newark area. The agency further alleged that FAPS
refused to hire qualified African-American candidates, including by telling
them that no positions were available when in fact FAPS was hiring. Finally,
the EEOC alleged that FAPS' employment application contained improper pre-employment
medical inquiries in violation of the ADA. Besides the monetary compensation,
the five year consent decree requires FAPS to meet substantial hiring goals for
African-Americans; give hiring priority to rejected class members who are
interested in working at the company; use recruiting methods designed to
increase the African-American applicant pool; and hire an EEO coordinator to
ensure compliance with Title VII. EEOC v. FAPS, Inc., C.A. No. No.
2:10-cv-03095 (D.N.J. June 15, 2016).
In
April 2015, Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and
its associated apprenticeship school agreed to create a back pay fund for a
group of minority sheet metal workers in partial settlement of race
discrimination claims against the local union. Pursuant to the settlement, it
is estimated that the union will pay approximately $12.7 million over the next
five years and provide substantial remedial relief to partially resolve claims
made against the union in 1991-2002. The trade union, which is responsible for
sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey, allegedly discriminated
against black and Hispanic journeypersons over a multi-year period in hiring
and job assignments. An analysis of hours and wages showed African-American and
Hispanic workers received fewer hours of work than their white co-workers
during most of this same timeframe. This particular agreement covers from April
1991 through December 2002. EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l
Ass'n, Case No. 71 Civ. 2887 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2015).
In
December 2015, Hillshire Brands (formerly known as Sara Lee Corporation) agreed
to pay $4 million to 74 workers at the now-shuttered Paris, Texas, plant,
including the dozens of people who sought EEOC charges against Hillshire and
other aggrieved workers identified by the EEOC and the plaintiffs. This
resolution settles claims that the company subjected a class of Black employees
to a hostile work environment that included racist graffiti and comments, that
included the N-word and "boy." The company also agreed to implement
training at all of its plants in a bid to end consolidated suits from the EEOC
and former worker Stanley Beaty. The consent decree also requires Hillshire to
implement anti-racism training and create a mechanism for employees at its
existing plants to confidentially report instances of harassment,
discrimination and retaliation. The settlement also requires Hillshire to
designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've
been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even
termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in
racial bias or behavior related to it. EEOC v. Hillshire Brands Co. f/k/a Sara
Lee Corp., No. 2:15-cv-01347 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15) and
Beaty et al v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex.
consent decree filed 12/18/15).
In
October 2015, a federal judge held that the operators of an Indianapolis
Hampton Inn in contempt for failing to comply with five different conditions
settling the EEOC's class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against
the companies. The judge faulted Noble Management LLC and New Indianapolis
Hotels for failing to: (1) properly post notices; (2) properly train management
employees; (3) keep employment records; (4) institute a new hiring procedure
for housekeeping employees; and (5) reinstate three former housekeeping
employees. The judge also faulted Noble and New Indianapolis Hotels for comingling
of medical records in employee personnel files. As background, the EEOC filed
suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in
September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American
housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race
discrimination. The agency also charged that the hotel paid lower wages to
Black housekeepers, excluded Black housekeeping applicants on a systemic basis,
and failed to maintain records required by law in violation of Title VII . In September 2012, the judge
entered a five-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's litigation against the
hotel operators. The decree provided $355,000 in monetary relief to
approximately 75 African-American former housekeeping employees and applicants
and required training, notice posting, reinstatement of three former
housekeeping employees, a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees and
ordered that the defendants maintain employment-related records.
The court also
enjoined the operators from race discrimination and retaliation in the future.
In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge
Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and
ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former
housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. Defendants were also ordered to:
(1) provide monthly reporting to the EEOC on compliance with the new hiring
procedure, recordkeeping and posting; (2) pay fines for late reporting; (3)
allow random inspections by the EEOC subject to a fine, for failure to grant
access; (4) pay fines for failure to post, destroying records or failing to
distribute employment applications; (5) provide EEOC with any requested employment
records within 15 days of a request; (6) cease comingling medical records; and
(7) train management employees. The posting and training provisions of the
Decree were also extended by two years. In November 2015, the judge awarded
$50,515 in fees and $6,733.76 in costs to the EEOC because the "Defendants
willfully violated the explicit terms of the Consent Decree and repeatedly
failed to comply with it [.]" EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and
Noble Management LLC, C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01234-WTL-DKL (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2015)
(fee ruling).
In
September 2015, BMW Manufacturing Co. settled for $1.6 million and other relief
an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company's criminal background check policy
disproportionately affects black logistics workers at a South Carolina plant.
Specifically, the EEOC alleged that after learning the results of the criminal
background checks around July 2008, BMW denied plant access to 88 logistics
employees, resulting in their termination from the previous logistics provider
and denial of hire by the new logistics services provider for work at BMW. Of
those 88 employees, 70 were Black. Some of the logistics employees had been
employed at BMW for several years, working for the various logistics services
providers utilized by BMW since the opening of the plant in 1994. Under the
terms of a consent decree signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong of the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina, the $1.6 million will be shared by 56
known claimants and other black applicants the EEOC said were shut out of BMW's
Spartanburg, S.C., plant when the company switched to a new logistics
contractor. In addition to the monetary relief, the company will provide each
claimant who wishes to return to the facility an opportunity to apply for a
logistics position. BMW will also notify other applicants who have previously
expressed interest in a logistics position at the facility of their right to
apply for work, the decree states. BMW has implemented a new criminal
background check policy and will continue to operate under that policy
throughout the three-year term of the decree. The company is expressly enjoined
from "utilizing the criminal background check guidelines" challenged
by the EEOC in its lawsuit, the decree states. The agreement also imposes on
BMW notice-posting, training, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements.
EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co., No. 7:13-cv-01583 (D.S.C. consent decree filed Sep. 8,
2015).
In
August 2015, Target Corp. settled for $2.8 million an EEOC charge that the
retailer's former tests for hiring for professional jobs discriminated against
applicants based on race, sex and disability. Three assessments used by Target
disproportionately screened out female and racial minority applicants, and a
separate psychological assessment was a pre-employment medical examination that
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had charged. Target also
violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to maintain the records
sufficient to gauge the impact of its hiring procedures. Under the three-year
conciliation agreement, reached before any lawsuit was filed, Target has
discontinued the use of the tests and made changes to its applicant tracking
system, the EEOC said. About 4,500 unsuccessful applicants affected by the
alleged discriminatory tests now are eligible to file claims for monetary
relief.
In
March 2015, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling company agreed to settle for
$12.26 million the EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and
retaliation against racial minorities nationwide. According to a complaint
filed by the EEOC the same day as the proposed decree, Patterson-UTI had engaged in patterns or
practices of hostile work environment harassment, disparate treatment
discrimination and retaliation against Hispanic, Latino, Black, American
Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander and other minority workers at its facilities in
Colorado and other states. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the
drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by
a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and
report on the company's compliance with certain training, management
evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No.
1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015).
In
January 2015, Skanska USA Building, Inc., a building contractor headquartered
in Parsippany, N.J., paid $95,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation
lawsuit brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated
federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were
working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for
complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. Skanska served as the general
contractor on the Methodist Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, where
the incidents in this lawsuit took place. The class of Black employees worked
for C-1, Inc. Construction Company, a minority-owned subcontractor for Skanska.
Skanska awarded a subcontract to C-1 to provide buck hoist operations for the
construction site and thereafter supervised all C-1 employees while at the work
site. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints
from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially
offensive comments and physical assault. EEOC v. Shanska USA Building, Inc.,
No. 2:10-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015).
In
December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment
companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle
allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The EEOC's
lawsuit charged that the staffing firms had discriminated against four Black
temporary employees and a class of Black and non-Hispanic job applicants by
failing to place or refer them for employment. The four temporary employees
said while seeking employment through the company's Memphis area facilities,
they witnessed Hispanic applicants getting preferential treatment in hiring and
placement. EEOC v. New Koosharem Corp., No. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. Tenn. consent
decree filed Dec. 5, 2014).
In
December 2014, three related well-servicing companies agreed to pay $1.2
million to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of
verbal abuse of minority employees. The EEOC complaint alleged that J&R
employees regularly used racial slurs to refer to Black, Hispanic and Native
American employees. Employees of these racial groups on company rigs regularly
heard racist terms and demeaning remarks about green cards and deportation, the
EEOC complaint said. Several individuals complained to management, but their
complaints were minimized or ignored, the complaint alleged. For example, an
area supervisor responded to employee complaints by telling the complainants
they could quit or by saying that he was sick of everyone coming to him and
that everyone simply needed to do their jobs. In addition, the complaint stated
that several men were demoted or fired after taking their complaints of
discrimination to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services' Labor Standards
Division. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp., No. 13-cv-00198 (D. Wyo. consent decree
filed Dec. 1, 2014).
In
November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services
contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class
lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and
sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. Under a
three-year consent decree signed Nov. 10 by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, ACM Services Inc. will pay a
combined $110,000 to the two Hispanic female workers who first brought the
allegations to the EEOC's attention and will establish a class fund of $305,000
for other potential claimants to be identified by the agency. According to the
EEOC, the company has relied exclusively on "word-of-mouth recruitment
practices" for field laborer positions, with the intent and effect of
restricting the recruitment of Black and female applicants. ACM also subjected
the two charging parties to harassment based on sex, national origin and race,
and it retaliated against them for opposing the mistreatment-and against one of
them based on her association with Black people-by firing them, the commission
alleged. The agreement applies to all ACM facilities and locations nationwide
and has extra-territorial application to the extent permitted by Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the decree
requires the company to set numerical hiring goals for its field laborer
positions, recruit Black and female applicants via print and Internet
advertisements and report to the EEOC regarding its attainment of the numerical
hiring goals and other settlement terms. EEOC v. ACM Servs., Inc., No.
8:14-cv-02997 (D. Md. consent decree filed Nov. 10, 2014).
In
November 2014, Battaglia Distributing Corporation paid $735,000 to a group of
current and former African-American employees. In this case, the EEOC alleged
that the Battaglia tolerated an egregious race-based hostile work environment,
requiring African-American dock workers to endure harassment that included
racial slurs (including the "N" word). Among other relief provided
under the decree, Battaglia also will provide its managers with training on
Title VII and report regularly to the EEOC on any complaints it has received,
as well as provide other data to demonstrate that it has not retaliated against
any of the participants in the litigation. EEOC v. Battaglia Distrib. Corp.,
No. 13-cv-5789 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 10, 2014).
In
October 2014, Prestige Transportation Service L.L.C., a Miami company that
provides transportation services to airline personnel to and from Miami
International Airport, paid $200,000 to settle a race discrimination and
retaliation lawsuit, in connection with actions allegedly committed under
different ownership. The EEOC charged in its suit that Prestige's predecessor
company, Airbus Alliance Inc., repeatedly instructed its human resource manager
to not hire African-American applicants because they were "trouble"
and "would sue the company." EEOC v. Prestige Transp. Service L.L.C.,
No. 1:13-cv-20684(JEM) (S.D. Fla. consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2014).
In
September 2014, McCormick & Schmick's settled a 2008 EEOC lawsuit, alleging
a pattern or practice of race discrimination against African-American job
applicants by refusing to hire them for front-of-the-house positions and by
denying equal work assignments because of their race. The consent decree
established a claims fund of $1.3 million and provides substantial injunctive
relief, including goals for hiring of Black job applicants for
front-of-the-house positions, targeted recruitment efforts, and extensive
self-assessment of hiring and work assignment practices to ensure
non-discrimination and compliance with the terms of the consent decree.
McCormick & Schmick's also must designate an outside monitor to oversee
compliance with the consent decree and submit reports to the EEOC. EEOC v.
McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. and McCormick and Schmick
Restaurant Corporation, No. WMN-09-cv-984 (D. Md. Sep. 12, 2014).
In
September 2013, U-Haul agreed to pay $750,000 to eight African-American current
and former employees and to provide other relief to settle a race and
retaliation discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's
suit, Black employees were subjected to racial slurs and other racially
offensive comments by their White supervisor, at U-Haul's Memphis facility. The
EEOC's complaint charged that the supervisor regularly referred to Black
employees with the "N" word and other derogatory slurs. The suit
further alleged that the company engaged in retaliation by firing one employee
when he complained of racial harassment to the company president. Under the
two-year consent decree, U-Haul Company of Tennessee must maintain an
anti-discrimination policy prohibiting race discrimination, racial harassment,
and retaliation, and provide mandatory training to all employees regarding the
policy. Additionally, the marketing company president will receive training on
race discrimination and on obligations to report race discrimination, racial
harassment, and retaliation. Finally, the company will provide written reports
to the EEOC regarding any race discrimination or racial harassment complaints
by employees. EEOC v. U-Haul Co. Int'l & U-Haul Co. of Tenn., No.
2:11-cv-02844 (W.D. Tenn. Sep. 25, 2013).
In
September 2013, a Kentucky coal mining company paid $245,000 to 19 total
applicants and amend its hiring practices to settle a racial discrimination
suit brought by the EEOC. River View Coal LLC, a unit of Alliance Resource
Partners LP, also will have to regularly report to the EEOC on its hiring
practices for two years to escape the suit, which alleged that the company
refused to hire a class of African-American applicants for coal mining jobs at
its Waverly, Ky., location since 2008. The consent decree also requires River
View to refrain from any future racial discrimination in its hiring procedures.
EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC, No. 4:11-cv-00117(JHM)(HBB) (W.D. Ky. Sep. 26,
2013).
In
December 2012, a South Dallas, TX mill agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of 14
Black employees to settle an EEOC race discrimination suit alleging that the
mill exposed Black employees to violent, racist graffiti and racial slurs by
co-workers, such as "KKK," swastikas, Confederate flags, "white
power" and other racist terms, including "die, n----r, die," as
well as the display of nooses at an employee workstation. Black employees
alleged that the supervisors allowed the behavior to continue unchecked. The
consent decree permanently enjoins the company from discriminating against
employees on the basis of race and requires the company to enact a graffiti
abatement policy and undergo annual reviews of its compliance for two years
EEOC v. Rock-Tenn Services Co., No. 3:10-cv-01960 (N.D. Tex. filed Sep. 29,
2012).
In
November 2012, a federal court ordered Caldwell Freight Lines, a now defunct
company, to pay $120,000 to settle a race discrimination complaint stemming
from its alleged refusal to hire Black applicants to work on its loading dock
even though it is no longer in business. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, 51
African American applicants sought work with Caldwell Freight and none was
hired even though many had previous dock experience and were qualified for the
positions. An EEOC investigation revealed that the company hired no Black dock
workers during the period studied and that one high-level manager allegedly
said he "didn't want any [B]lacks on the dock." Under the terms of
the consent decree, if the company resumes operations, it will have to
implement an anti-discrimination policy and report to the EEOC all
discrimination complaints and information regarding its hiring practices during
the term of the decree. EEOC v. Caldwell Freight Lines, Case No. 5:11CV00134
(W.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2012).
In
October 2012, a federal district court in Texas ordered AA Foundries Inc. to
take specific measures to prevent racial harassment of Black employees at its
San Antonio plant following a $200,000 jury verdict finding the company liable
for race discrimination under Title VII. According to the EEOC, evidence at
trial indicated that a White supervisor used "the N word" in
reference to Black employees, called male Black employees "motherfucking
boys," posted racially tinged materials in an employee break room, and
accused Black employees of "always stealing and wanting welfare."
After several employees filed racial harassment charges with the EEOC, a noose
was displayed in the workplace. When some employees complained, the supervisor
allegedly replied the noose was "no big deal" and that workers who
complained were "too sensitive." Additionally, at trial, he also
admitted it did not bother him to hear racially derogatory language in the
workplace. In a judgment entered Oct. 9, the district court upheld the jury
verdict that AA Foundries must pay punitive damages of $100,000 to former
employee Christopher Strickland, $60,000 to former employee Leroy Beal, and
$40,000 to former employee Kenneth Bacon. Because trial evidence also showed
that AA Foundries lacked effective internal procedures to handle discrimination
complaints, it must conduct at least one hour of equal employment opportunity
training for all employees within 60 days of the court's Oct. 9 order. The
company must distribute copies of its revised written anti-harassment policy to
all current and future employees and post the policy in the break room of its
San Antonio manufacturing facility. Every employee shall be notified of the
procedure for initiating racial harassment or other bias complaints, including
notice of their right to file EEOC charges if the company does not resolve
their complaint. EEOC v. AA Foundries Inc., No. 11-792 (W.D. Tex. judgment and
injunction entered Oct. 9, 2012).
In
September 2012, two California-based trucking firms agreed to settle for
$630,000 an EEOC lawsuit alleging one company violated Title VII by permitting the harassment
of African American, Latino, and East Indian workers and by otherwise
discriminating based on race, national origin, and religion. In its original
complaint, EEOC alleged that since at least 2003, management officials and
employees at Scully Distribution referred to Black drivers as
"niggers," East Indian drivers as "Taliban" and "camel
jockeys," and a Latino manager as a "spic." EEOC also charged
Scully gave non-White drivers less favorable job assignments than their White
counterparts. EEOC claimed Scully also fired one of the three employees who
filed EEOC charges complaining about the alleged harassment in retaliation for
his protected activity. Scully denied all of EEOC's allegations, but it and its
successor Ryder System Inc. agreed to resolve the suit. EEOC v. Scully
Distribution Servs. Inc., No. 11-cv-08090 (C.D. Cal. proposed consent decree
filed Sep. 25, 2012).
In
August 2012, a Tampa, Fla.-based environmental services company agreed to
settle a race discrimination and harassment case brought by the EEOC and eleven
intervening plaintiffs for $2,750,000 and other relief. In the lawsuit, EEOC
alleged that the harassment of African American employees included multiple
displays of nooses, the repeated use of the "N-word," and physical
threats. The EEOC also claimed that four White employees were harassed by their
White co-workers because they associated with African-American employees. Two
African-American employees also alleged they were fired because of their race
and two White employees asserted they were fired for engaging in protected
activity and in retaliation for associating with African-American employees. At
summary judgment, the district court denied in part the company's motion,
stating that the company ignored both the extreme symbolism of a noose and that
a reasonable jury could conclude that the worksite had at least some racial
tension given the other nooses, threats, and racial epithets that each
African-American employee experienced, and that the noose was intended to
intimidate all African-Americans. The court also found that a reasonable jury
could decide that Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent or
remedy the harassment since it did not distribute its written policy forbidding
racial harassment to its employees, post it at the job-site, or train the
employees about what constitutes harassment and how to report it.
The court, however, determined that Defendant
was entitled to summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims brought
on behalf of the White employees because injury must be personal and thus a
White employee cannot sue for harassment of African-American employees that the
White employee happened to see. Lastly, intervening Plaintiff provided direct
evidence that the supervisor who fired him did so because of his race (through
the supervisor's comment that he could get rid of "that . . . nigger. 2011
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110149 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2011). Although the company denied
liability for the harassment, the three-year consent decree enjoins the company
from engaging in further retaliation, race discrimination, or racial
harassment, including associational bias. The company also must revise its
anti-discrimination policy; provide employee training on the revised policy;
and develop a procedure for investigating complaints of race discrimination and
harassment and evaluating supervisors' compliance with the revised
anti-discrimination policy. EEOC v. WRS Infrastructure and Env't Inc. d/b/a WRS
Compass, No. 1:09-cv-4272 (N.D. Ill. consent decree filed Aug. 23, 2012).
In
June 2012, Yellow Transportation Inc. and YRC Inc. agreed to settle for $11
million an EEOC suit alleging that the trucking companies permitted the racial
harassment of Black employees at a now-closed Chicago Ridge, Ill., facility.
The proposed consent decree would settle both EEOC's suit and a private suit
filed in 2008 by 14 Black employees under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42
U.S.C. § 1981), which were consolidated for purposes of settlement. In its
complaint, the EEOC claimed that Black employees at the Chicago Ridge facility,
which closed in 2009, were subjected to multiple incidents of hangman's nooses
and racist graffiti, comments, and cartoons. EEOC claimed that Yellow and YRC
also subjected Black employees to harsher discipline and closer scrutiny than
their White counterparts and gave Black employees more difficult and
time-consuming work assignments. Although numerous Black employees complained
about these conditions, Yellow and YRC failed to act to correct the problems,
EEOC alleged. The court granted preliminary approval of a proposed consent
decree, but it must grant final approval following a fairness hearing before
the decree takes effect. EEOC v. Yellow Transp. Inc., No. 09 CV 7693 (N.D. Ill.
preliminary approval granted June 28, 2012).
In
January 2012, Pepsi Beverages Company, formerly known as Pepsi Bottling Group,
agreed in a post-investigation conciliation to pay $3.13 million and provide
training and job offers to victims of the former criminal background check
policy to resolve an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination in hiring.
"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." Additionally, "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."
In
December 2011, a New York City retail-wholesale fish market agreed to pay
$900,000 and institute anti-discrimination measures to settle an EEOC lawsuit
charging it with creating a hostile work environment for Black and African male
employees. The lawsuit alleged that management at the company's Brooklyn
facility routinely subjected more than 30 Black and African male loaders and
drivers to sexual and racial harassment and retaliated against employees who
complained. The harassment was both physical and verbal and included offensive
comments based on race and national origin such as "nigger" and
"African bastard" as well as explicit sexual expressions. The
Commission also alleged that the company engaged in retaliation against workers
who joined in the complaint. In addition to the monetary relief, M. Slavin
agreed to submit to 5 years of monitoring by the EEOC; retain an independent
EEO coordinator to investigate complaints; conduct one-on-one training for the
worst harassers; and provide annual training for all staff. EEOC v. M. Slavin
& Sons Ltd., No. 09-5330 (E.D.N.Y. filed consent decree 12/15/11).
In
December 2010, Roadway Express, a less-than-truckload motor carrier with
terminals throughout North America, settled the claims of two lawsuits alleging
racial harassment of Black employees and race discrimination in terms and
conditions of employment at two Illinois facilities. The claims included: (1)
awarding Black employees less favorable assignments (both terminals); (2)
assigning them more difficult and demanding work (both terminals); (3)
enforcing break times more stringently (Chicago Heights); (4) subjecting their
work to heightened scrutiny (Chicago Heights); and (5) disciplining them for
minor misconduct (both terminals). Roadway also assigned Chicago Heights
employees to segregated work groups. The 5-year decree, which applies to
Roadway and YRC, Roadway's identity after it merged with Yellow Transportation,
includes $10 million in monetary relief, $8.5 million to be paid upon
preliminary approval of the decree and the remainder in three subsequent
installments due on or before November 1 of 2011, 2012, and 2013. In addition
to prohibiting race discrimination and retaliation against Black employees at YRC's
Chicago Heights facility, the decree also requires YRC to provide all Chicago
Heights employees annual training on racial harassment and race discrimination
and engage a Work Assignment Consultant and a Disciplinary Practice Consultant
to assist it in reviewing and revising the company's work assignment and
disciplinary policies and practices at the Chicago facility. EEOC v. Roadway
Express, Inc., and YRC, Inc., Nos. 06-CV-4805 and 08-CV-5555 and Bandy v.
Roadway Express, Inc., and YRC, Inc., No. 10-CV-5304 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2010).
In
October 2010, Austin Foam Plastics, Inc., (AFP) a producer and distributor of
corrugated box and cushion packaging, agreed to pay $600,000 to resolve a
number of racial and sexual harassment charges. In pertinent part, the EEOC
alleged that Black employees at AFP were subjected to intimidation, ridicule,
insults, racially offensive comments and jokes, and cartoons and images that
denigrated African-Americans. White employees and managers regularly emailed
racially derogatory jokes, cartoons, and other materials to coworkers, and
posted racially offensive photographs on the bulletin board outside the human
resources office. They also engaged in threatening and intimidating conduct
toward Black employees, such as tampering with the brake lines and air hoses of
one CP's truck. The 2-year consent decree also enjoins race and sex (male)
discrimination under Title VII, as well as retaliation. Defendant will submit
to EEOC an EEO policy that prohibits race and sex discrimination and
retaliation. Defendant will file annual audit reports with the EEOC summarizing
each complaint of race or sex (male) discrimination, or retaliation, it
receives at its Pfluggerville, Texas location and its disposition. EEOC v.
Austin Foam Plastics, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-00180 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2010).
In
September 2010, a mineral company agreed to pay $440,000 and other relief to
settle a class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. Allegedly, the
company disciplined an African-American quality control supervisor for having
facial hair and using a cell phone during work, while Caucasian employees were
not reprimanded for similar conduct. In addition to management subjecting the
Black supervisor to heightened and unfair scrutiny, the company moved his
office to the basement, while White employees holding the same position were
moved to higher floors. Other African-American employees were subjected to
racial harassment, such as a White supervisor placing a hangman's noose on a
piece of machinery. EEOC v. Mineral Met, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-02199 (N.D. Ohio
Sept. 23, 2010).
In
August 2010, the EEOC and the largest commercial roofing contractor in New York
state settled for $1 million an EEOC suit alleging the company discriminated
against a class of Black workers through verbal harassment, denials of
promotion, and unfair work assignments. According to the lawsuit, EEOC alleged
from at least 1993 to the present, a White foreman repeatedly used racial slurs
toward Black workers, that the company assigned Black employees to the most
difficult, dirty, and least desirable jobs, that the roofing contractor
systematically excluded Black employees from promotion opportunities, and that
the company retaliated against those who complained. Additionally, nooses were
displayed and portable toilets featured racially offensive graffiti with
swastikas and "KKK" references at the job sites, EEOC alleged.
Although it admitted no wrongdoing and said that it settled the case for
financial reasons, the company agreed to hire an equal employment opportunity
coordinator to provide employee EEO training, monitor future race
discrimination complaints, and file periodic reports with EEOC regarding
hiring, layoffs, and promotions. EEOC v. Elmer W. Davis Inc., No. 07-CV-06434
(W.D.N.Y. consent decree filed Aug. 10, 2010).
In
December 2009, a national grocery chain paid $8.9 million to resolve three
lawsuits collectively alleging race, color, national origin and retaliation
discrimination, affecting 168 former and current employees. According to the
lawsuits, minority employees were repeatedly subjected to derogatory comments
and graffiti. Blacks were termed "n-----s" and Hispanics termed
"s---s;" offensive graffiti in the men's restroom, which included
racial and ethnic slurs, depictions of lynchings, swastikas, and White supremacist
and anti-immigrant statements, was so offensive that several employees would
relieve themselves outside the building or go home at lunchtime rather than use
the restroom. Black and Hispanic employees also were allegedly given harder
work assignments and were more frequently and severely disciplined than their
Caucasian co-workers. Lastly, EEOC asserted that dozens of employees complained
about the discriminatory treatment and harassment and were subsequently given
the harder job assignments, were passed over for promotion and even fired as
retaliation. EEOC v. Albertsons LLC, Civil Action No. 06-cv-01273, No.
08-cv-00640, and No. 08-cv-02424 (D. Colo 2009).
In May
2009, an Illinois construction company agreed to pay $630,000 to settle a class
action race discrimination suit, alleging that it laid off Black employees
after they had worked for the company for short periods of time, but retained
White employees for long-term employment. The three-year consent decree also
prohibits the company from engaging in future discrimination and retaliation;
requires that it implement a policy against race discrimination and
retaliation, as well as a procedure for handling complaints of race
discrimination and retaliation; mandates that the company provide training to
employees regarding race discrimination and retaliation; and requires the
company to provide periodic reports to the EEOC regarding layoffs and
complaints of discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v. Area Erectors, Inc., No.
1:07-CV-02339 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2009).
In
August 2008, a tobacco retail chain agreed to pay $425,000 and provide
significant remedial relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit on behalf
of qualified Black workers who were denied promotion to management positions.
The three-year consent decree also requires the company, which has stores in
Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi, to train all managers and supervisors on
preventing race discrimination and retaliation; create job descriptions for
manager and assistant manager positions that outline the qualifications for
each position; develop a written promotion policy that will include the
procedures by which employees will be notified of promotional opportunities;
report assistant manager and manager vacancies, the name and race of all
applicants for the position, and the name of the successful candidate; report
the names of all African Americans who are either hired or promoted to manager
or assistant manager positions; and report any complaints of race
discrimination and describe its investigation in response to the complaint.
EEOC v. Tobacco Superstores, Inc., No. 3:05 CV 00218 (E.D. Ark. settled Aug.
2008).
In
July 2008, a Chicago-based leading chemical manufacturer of high-quality
surfactants, polymers, chemical specialties and cosmetic preservatives paid
$175,000 to settle a class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by
the EEOC. According to the lawsuit, a class of African American employees had
been subjected to race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation for
complaining about the misconduct. The company agreed to conduct EEO training
and refrain from future acts of discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v.
McIntyre Group, Ltd., No. 07 C 5458 (N.D. Ill. settled July, 2008).
In May
2008, the EEOC obtained a settlement of $1.65 million in a racial harassment
case filed against a general contractor and its subsidiaries on behalf of a
class of African American employees who were subjected to egregious racial
harassment at a construction site in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The harassment
included a life size noose made of heavy rope hung from a beam in a class
member's work area for at least 10 days before it was removed; the regular use
of the "N-word"; racially offensive comments made to Black individuals,
including "I think everybody should own one" and "Black people
are no good and you can't trust them" and "Black people can't read or
write." Additionally, racist graffiti was written in portable toilets,
with terms such as "coon"; "if u not White u not right";
"White power"; "KKK"; and "I love the Ku Klux
Klan." Additional remedies were injunctive relief enjoining each defendant
from engaging in racial harassment or retaliation; anti-discrimination
training; the posting of a notice about the settlement; and reporting
complaints of racial harassment to the EEOC for monitoring. EEOC v. Conectiv,et
al. Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00389 (E.D. Pa. settled May 5, 2008).
In
August 2007, a renowned French chef agreed to pay $80,000 to settle claims that
his upscale Manhattan restaurant discriminated against Hispanic workers and
Asian employees from Bangladesh in job assignments. The aggrieved employees
alleged that they were restricted to "back of the house" positions
such as busboys and runners and refused promotions to "front of the
house" positions such as captains, which instead went to Caucasian workers
with less experience and seniority. They also alleged that they were subjected
to racial insults and harassment when they complained. EEOC v. Restaurant
Daniel, No. 07-6845 (S.D.N.Y. August 2, 2007).
In
June 2007, EEOC obtained $500,000 from a South Lyon, Mich., steel tubing
company, which, after purchasing the assets of its predecessor company,
allegedly refused to hire a class of African American former employees of the
predecessor. Though the company hired 52 of its predecessor's former employees,
none of them were Black. EEOC charged that many of the White employees hired
had significantly less experience than the Black former employees represented
by the EEOC, and in some cases had actually been trained by the same African
American employees who were denied hire. The suit also included other Black
applicants who were denied hire in favor of less qualified White applicants.
EEOC v. Michigan Seamless Tube, No. 05-73719 (E.D. Mich. June 8, 2007).
In
February 2007, EEOC obtained a $5 million settlement resolving two consolidated
class action employment discrimination lawsuits against a global engine systems
and parts company, asserting that the company engaged in illegal discrimination
against African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians at its Rockford and Rockton,
Ill., facilities with respect to pay, promotions and training. EEOC v. Woodward
Governor Company, No. 06-cv-50178 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2007).
In
August 2006, the Commission settled this Title VII lawsuit alleging that since
at least 1991, defendant, a manufacturer of precision metal-formed products and
assemblies, failed to hire women and Blacks into laborer and machine operator
positions at its plant because of their sex and race for $940,000. The
complaint also alleged that defendant failed to retain employment applications.
The 39-month consent decree requires defendant to consider all female and Black
applicants on the same basis as all other applicants, to engage in good faith
efforts to increase recruitment of female and Black applicants, and to submit
semiannual reports to EEOC that include applicant flow and hiring data by race
and sex.EEOC v. S&Z Tool Co., Inc., No. 1:03CV2023 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16,
2006).
In
August 2006, a major national public works contractor paid $125,000 to settle
race, gender, national origin and religious discrimination and retaliation
lawsuits brought by EEOC on behalf of a class of Black, Asian, and female electricians
who were subjected to daily harassment due to their race, national origin,
and/or gender by their immediate foremen, racial and otherwise offensive
graffiti in plain sight at the workplace, and retaliation for complaining. EEOC
v. Amelco, No. C 05-2492 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006).
In
June 2005, EEOC obtained an $8 million dollar settlement from Ford Motor Co.
and a major national union in a class race discrimination lawsuit, alleging
that a test had a disproportionately negative impact on African American hourly
employees seeking admission to an apprenticeship program. See http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-1-05.html
In
November 2004, the Commission settled for $50 million a lawsuit filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of a class of African Americans, Asian
Americans, Latinos, and women allegedly subjected to discrimination in
recruitment, hiring, assignment, promotion and discharge based on race, color,
national origin, and sex. Abercrombie & Fitch also agreed to improve
hiring, recruitment, training, and promotions policies; revise marketing
material; and select a Vice President of Diversity and diversity recruiters.
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. CV-04-4731 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
10, 2004).
In
November 2002, the Commission settled a lawsuit with the Las Vegas hotel for
more than $1 million on behalf of African American and Hispanic applicants who
were allegedly were not hired for server positions because of their race. The
hotel also agreed to conduct antidiscrimination training and implement
procedures to investigate discrimination complaints. EEOC v. The Mirage Hotel
& Casino, No. CV S-02-1554 RLH - LRL (D.Nev. Nov. 27, 2002).
Youth@ Work
In
September 2006, the Korean owners of a fast food chain in Torrance, California
agreed to pay $5,000 to resolve a Title VII lawsuit alleging that a 16-year old biracial
girl, who looked like a fair-skinned African American, was refused an
application for employment because of her perceived race (Black). According to
the EEOC lawsuit, after a day at the beach with her Caucasian friends, the teen
was asked if she would request an application on her friend's behalf since the
friend was a little disheveled in appearance. The owner refused to give the
teen an application and told her the store was not hiring anymore despite the
presence of a "Help Wanted" sign in the window. After consultation
among the friends, another White friend entered the store and was immediately
given an application on request. EEOC v. Quiznos, No. 2:06-cv-00215-DSFJC (C.D.
Cal. settled Sept. 22, 2006).
In
December 2005, EEOC resolved this Title VII lawsuit alleging that a fast food conglomerate
subjected a Black female employee and other non-White restaurant staff members
(some of them minors) to a hostile work environment based on race. The racial
harassment included a male shift leader's frequent use of "nigger"
and his exhortations that Whites were a superior race. Although the assistant
manager received a letter signed by eight employees complaining about the shift
leader's conduct, the shift leader was exonerated and the Black female employee
who complained was fired. The consent decree provided $255,000 in monetary
relief: $105,000 to Charging Party and $150,000 for a settlement fund for
eligible claimants as determined by EEOC. EEOC v. Carl Karcher Enterprises,
Inc., d/b/a Carl's Jr. Restaurant, No. CV-05-01978 FCD PAW (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13,
2005).
In
October 2005, an elevator manufacturing company agreed to pay $75,000 to an
18-year-old African American welder and $100,000 to 12 other Black employees in
an EEOC suit alleging racial harassment of the teen and a pattern of
discrimination against African American employees at the Middleton, Tennessee
facility. Harassment of the teen included calling him a "Black
[S.O.B.]," telling racially offensive jokes, hiding his safety gloves,
placing stink bombs under his workstation, and telling him that the vending
machines do not take "crack money." EEOC v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator
Manufacturing, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-1160-T (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 2005).
In
September 2005, EEOC obtained a $34,000 default judgment on behalf of a then
19-year old Black former employee of a manufacturing plant in Illinois who
alleged that he had been subjected to derogatory remarks and racial epithets,
such as "what are you supposed to be, some kind of special nigger?"
or name-calling such as "pencil dick," by his supervisor. The supervisor
was the father of the company's president and he insisted that the
"n-word" is Latin for "Black person." When the teen
complained to the company president about the offensive remarks, the
supervisor's son replied that he could not reprimand his father. EEOC v.
Midwest Rack Manufacturing, Inc., No. 05-194-WDS (S.D. Ill. Sep. 21, 2005).
In
March 2004, a Ruby Tuesday franchise agreed to pay $32,000 to resolve an EEOC
lawsuit, alleging race discrimination in hiring against two African American
college students who were refused employment as food servers in favor of
several Caucasian applicants with less or similar experience and
qualifications. According to the lawsuit, when the students met with the store
manager, he briefly reviewed their applications and told them they were
"not what he was looking for." EEOC v. RT KCMO, LLC d/b/a Ruby
Tuesday's, No.03-CV-00983-FJG (W.D. Mo. settled March 30, 2004).
In
February 2004, the Commission settled a racial and sexual harassment lawsuit
for $67,000 plus injunctive relief on behalf of two Black young female
employees who alleged that they were subjected to unwelcome touching, degrading
sexual and racial comments, and were shown a drawing of a Ku Klux Klan member
by their supervisor. After one of the women complained, her hours were cut and
she was eventually terminated. The other employee was forced to resign. EEOC v.
Planet Wings of Rockland, Inc., No. 03 CV 5430 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2004).
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Hiring
In
August 2016, an Illinois-based payroll and human resource services firm agreed
to a $1.4 million settlement of charges that the company discriminated against
Black and Hispanic job applicants and employees. ADP LLC, under a conciliation
agreement signed before any lawsuit was filed, also will enhance its recruitment,
hiring and promotion of racial minorities, the EEOC announced July 29. ADP in
resolving the charges didn't admit it engaged in any violations of Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act..
In
March 2016, a manufacturing company based in New Ulm, Minn., paid $19,500 to
settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC, alleging that Windings,
Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it refused to hire a biracial
(African-American and White) applicant for a vacant assembler position, and
instead hired a White applicant. According to EEOC's lawsuit, Kimball applied
for a vacant assembler job and interviewed with the company in January 2014.
The applicant was qualified for the job as he passed the job-related assessment
tests, and had previous work experience as an assembler. In addition to the
monetary relief, the two-year consent decree requires Windings to use hiring
procedures to provide equal employment opportunity to all applicants including
posting vacancy announcements and job listings on its website, and not solely
rely on word-of-mouth recruitment or employee referrals. Windings also will use
objective standards for hiring, guidelines for structured interviews, and will
document interviews. Windings adopted a written affirmative action plan, and
will seek out applications from qualified minority applicants, including
African-Americans. Also, Windings agrees to participate in job fairs and
recruiting events that target Black Americans and to provide EEOC with reports of
its applicants, hiring and specific reasons why applicants were not selected
during the decree's term. EEOC v. Windings, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-cv-02901
(D. Minn. consent decree filed Mar. 18, 2016).
In
September 2015, Cabela's Inc., an outdoor recreation merchandiser based in
Sidney, Nebraska with 60 retail stores in 33 states, agreed to take nationwide
measures to increase the diversity of its workforce to settle EEOC's
allegations that the company discriminated in recruitment and hiring of minorities.
The settlement agreement resolves an EEOC commissioner's charge filed against
the company. Under the agreement, Cabela's is required to appoint a diversity
and inclusion director who will report directly to the company's chief
administrative officer and set hiring goals designed to achieve parity in the
hiring rates of white and minority job applicants. The agreement also requires
Cabela's to make equal employment opportunity compliance a component in the
performance evaluation of managers and supervisors, to update its EEO policies,
and provide annual training on EEO issues for all employees.
In
April 2015, a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss a claim of racial
discrimination in hiring against Rosebud Restaurants, the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. In its complaint, the EEOC
charged that the Chicago-area Italian restaurant chain violated federal civil
rights laws by refusing to hire African-Americans because of their race. The
company's motion to dismiss argued that the EEOC's complaint should be
dismissed because it did not identify the victims of the alleged hiring
discrimination. the court rejected that argument, concluding that the EEOC's
"allegations of intentional discrimination are sufficient to state a claim
for Title VII relief . . . even in the absence of the identification of an
individual job applicant who was rejected because of his race." EEOC v.
Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-6656 (N.D. Ill. decision
filed Apr. 7, 2015).
In
September 2014, the EEOC appealed the dismissal of its race discrimination
complaints alleging that an employer's withdrawal of a job offer from a
qualified Black applicant because she refused to cut off her dreadlocks
constituted race discrimination under Title VII . On the appeal, the
Commission contends that the district court improperly dismissed its original
and amended complaints because they stated plausible claims of intentional
discrimination. Specifically, the Commission argued that the employer's
application of its grooming policy to prohibit dreadlocks discriminates on the
immutable trait of racial hair texture, violates the fundamental right to
freedom of racial expression, and promotes unlawful racial stereotyping. EEOC
v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Solutions, No. 14-13482 (11th Cir. Brief filed Sept. 22,
2014).
In
June 2013, the EEOC and J.B. Hunt Transport Inc. settled a race discrimination
charge alleging the nationwide transportation company engaged in unlawful race
discrimination by rejecting a Black truck driver applicant because of a prior
criminal conviction unrelated to his prospective job duties. The settlement
follows conciliation of an EEOC charge under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act over claims that an African-American job candidate was denied a truck
driver position at a J.B. Hunt facility in San Bernardino, Calif., in 2009
based on a criminal conviction record, which the EEOC contends was unrelated to
the duties of the job. The federal agency also reviewed the company's broader
policy with respect to the hiring of job applicants with conviction records.
Blanket prohibitions are not in accordance with the agency's policy guidance on
the subject, which was reissued on April 25, 2010. The EEOC's guidance
recommends evaluating: the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct; the
time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence;
and the nature of the job sought prior to disqualifying a candidate with such a
record. J.B. Hunt also reached a private settlement with the alleged
discrimination victim, who filed an EEOC charge after being denied a job at
J.B. Hunt's San Bernardino, Calif., facility in 2009. As part of a five-year
conciliation agreement, J.B. Hunt agreed to review and, if necessary, revise
its hiring and selection policies to comply with EEOC's April 2012 enforcement
guidance regarding employers' use of arrest and conviction records. The EEOC
will monitor compliance with the conciliation agreement. The EEOC entered into
a pre-suit conciliation agreement.
In
November 2012, Alliant Techsystems Inc. paid $100,000 to settle an EEOC suit
alleging that the company violated Title VII when it refused to hire an African-American
woman for a technical support job at its offices in Edina because of her race.
According to the lawsuit, the alleged victim applied and was interviewed
several times for the job in May 2007. After the first interview, the recruiter
allegedly advised her to take out her braids to appear more professional. She
did so and purportedly was later told by the recruiter that Alliant wanted to
hire her and that she would be contacted by the company's Human Resources
Department. However, by the time she met with the company's information
technology director, she had put her braids back in. The next day, she was
informed that she would not be hired. In June 2007, the company hired a White
male for the IT job. The 3-year consent decree, which applies to the company's
headquarters in Minnesota and Virginia, enjoins Alliant from further
discriminating in hiring based on race and from retaliating against persons who
oppose practices made unlawful under Title VII. Additionally, the company will
review its workplace policies to assure that they comply with Title VII and
will train its entire staff on the laws against discrimination. EEOC v. Alliant
Techsystems Inc., Case No. 0:11-cv-02785-DSD-JJG (D. Minn. consent decree filed
Nov. 20, 2012).
In
April 2012, Bankers Asset Management Inc. agreed to pay $600,000 to settle an
EEOC lawsuit alleging that the real estate company excluded Black applicants
from jobs at the company's Little Rock location based on their race. The firm
also allegedly retaliated against other employees and former employees for
opposing or testifying about the race discrimination by demoting and forcing
one worker out of her job and by suing others in state court. In addition to
paying $600,000, the three-year consent decree settling the lawsuit also
requires Bankers Asset Management to hold a mandatory, annual three-hour
training on race discrimination and retaliation in which its president or
another officer participates, among other provisions. EEOC v. Bankers Asset
Mgmt. Inc., Civil Action No. 4:10-CV-002070-SWW (E.D. Ark.Apr. 18, 2012).
In
February 2012, the owners of Piggly Wiggly supermarkets in Hartsville and
Lafayette, Tenn., agreed to pay $40,000 to settle a race and gender
discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In its lawsuit, the EEOC asserted
that the Piggly Wiggly locations owned by MWR Enterprises Inc. II violated
federal law by maintaining policies and practices that intentionally failed to
hire African-Americans because of their race for positions at the company's
Piggly Wiggly store in Hartsville and Lafayette. The EEOC further charged that
the company maintained a segregated work force and an established practice of
not hiring males for cashier positions at the same locations. The four-year
consent decree also requires Defendant MWR Enterprises Inc., II, to establish a
written policy which provides that all job assignments will be made without
consideration to gender; establish guidelines and procedures for processing
employment applications; provide Title VII training on race and gender
discrimination to its managers; meet recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
and post a notice about the lawsuit and settlement at its store locations. EEOC
v. MWR Enterprises Inc., II, C.A. No. 3:10-cv-00901 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 23, 2012).
In
January 2012, a Johnson City, N.Y -based cleaning company agreed to pay
$450,000 to 15 former employees to settle a hiring discrimination and
retaliation case. According to an EEOC lawsuit filed in September 2011 in a
federal court in Pennsylvania, the executives of the cleaning company
prohibited a White supervisor from hiring Black employees for a client in
Concordsville, PA. The supervisor continued to hire qualified Black workers,
and later was fired for defying her managers' instructions. The EEOC also
alleged that the company forced Black workers at the Concordville worksite to
sit in the back of the cafeteria during breaks, and ultimately barred them from
the cafeteria altogether The company later fired the entire crew, replacing
them with all non-Black workers. The EEOC filed a lawsuit seeking relief for
the terminated supervisor and Black employees. In addition to the monetary
relief, the company agreed to providing EEO training for its managers and
supervisors the company and to submit a follow-up report on remedial measures
being taken at the Concordville worksite. EEOC v. Matrix L.L.C., Civil Action
No. 2:11-cv-06183 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2012).
In
January 2012, a marine construction and transportation company located in
Dyersburg, Tenn., will pay an African-American job applicant $75,000 to settle
a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's
lawsuit, the company refused to hire a Black job applicant for a deckhand
position because of his race in violation of Title VII . In addition to the monetary
relief, a three-year consent decree requires the company to use its best
efforts to fill up to 25 percent of available positions with African-Americans.
Choctaw has also been ordered to maintain records of discrimination complaints,
provide annual reports to the EEOC, and post a notice to employees about the
lawsuit that includes the EEOC's contact information. EEOC v. Choctaw Transp.
Co., Inc., 1:10-cv-01248-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 19, 2012).
In
September 2011, the EEOC filed suit against Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC,
alleging that the nationwide retailer of sporting goods, apparel, and other
miscellaneous products has been discriminating in its hiring since at least
November 2005. The EEOC's suit alleged that qualified African-Americans and
Hispanics were routinely denied retail positions such as cashier, sales
associate, team leader, supervisor, manager and other positions at many Bass
Pro stores nationwide and that managers at Bass Pro stores in the Houston area,
in Louisiana, and elsewhere made overtly racially derogatory remarks
acknowledging the discriminatory practices, including that hiring Black candidates
did not fit the corporate profile. The lawsuit also claims that Bass Pro
punished employees who opposed the company's unlawful practices, in some
instances firing them or forcing them to resign. EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor
World, LLC, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-03425 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2011).
In
March 2011, a federal district court in Maryland rejected a novel attempt by a
national restaurant chain to block the EEOC from airing radio spots seeking
Black individuals who applied for a job or worked at the chain's Baltimore
location, in connection with its race bias suit against the restaurant. EEOC v.
McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Rests. Inc., No. 1:08-cv-00984 (D. Md. motion
denied Mar. 17, 2011).
In
December 2010, the EEOC filed a race discrimination and retaliation suit
against a real estate brokerage and management company alleging that the
company refused to hire numerous Black applicants and then retaliated against
other employees or former employees for opposing the race discrimination. The lawsuit
seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, instatement or reinstatement
as well as an injunction against future discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v.
Cry-Leike, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:10-CV-002070 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 30, 2010).
In
November 2010, a Chicago janitorial services provider agreed to pay $3 million
to approximately 550 rejected Black job applicants under a four-year consent
decree, settling the EEOC's allegations of race and national origin
discrimination in recruitment and hiring. The EEOC had alleged that the
provider had recruited through media directed at Eastern European immigrants
and Hispanics and hired people from those groups over African Americans, and
that the provider's use of subjective decisionmaking had a disparate impact on
African Americans. As part of the decree, the provider also agreed to extensive
changes in its employment policies, to engage in "active recruitment"
of African American employees, to hire previously rejected Black applicants, to
implement training on discrimination and retaliation, and to hire an outside
monitor to review compliance with the decree. EEOC v. Scrub Inc., No. 09 C 4228
(N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 9, 2010).
In
June 2010, the EEOC obtained a ruling by the Ninth Circuit that permits the
Commission to pursue injunctive relief to stop a coal company mining in the
Navajo Nation from discriminating in employment against non-Navajo Indians. In
this Title VII case, EEOC claimed mineral lease provisions that require companies mining
on the Navajo reservation in Arizona to give employment preferences to Navajos
are unlawful. By honoring those provisions and refusing to hire non-Navajo
Indians, Peabody discriminates based on national origin, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
EEOC asserted. EEOC also can proceed with efforts to secure an injunction
against future enforcement of the Navajo hiring preference, the court added.
Should a court find a Title VII violation and issue such an injunction, Peabody
and the Navajo Nation could file a third-party complaint against the Interior
Secretary under Rule 14(a) to prevent the Secretary from seeking to enforce the
lease provisions or cancel the leases, it said. EEOC v. Peabody W. Coal Co.,
No. 06-17261 (9th Cir. June 23, 2010).
In
January 2010, an international investment management firm based in Malvern,
Pennsylvania settled for $300,000 the EEOC's Title VII lawsuit, alleging that the
firm failed to hire an African American female applicant for a financial
planning manager position at defendant's Charlotte, North Carolina office
because of her race. She was the only African American among four candidates,
and according to the EEOC, had met or exceeded all requirements for the job,
had received highly favorable comments as she progressed through defendant's
interview process, which included multiple in-person and telephone interviews
with high level managers, as well as an in-person assessment by a third party
on matters such as personality and aptitude. Additionally, at the conclusion of
her final interview, defendant's managing director allegedly told the Black
applicant she was "obviously qualified for the position." The firm,
however, offered the job to two less qualified White applicants -- the first declined
and the second accepted. The 2-year consent decree also enjoins the firm from
making hiring decisions based on race and prohibits retaliation. EEOC v.
Vanguard Group, Inc., No. 09-04424 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2010).
In
March 2009, a manufacturer and distributor of foodservice equipment has offered
permanent employment to an African American applicant and furnished other
relief to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit alleging that the company
refused to hire the Black applicant into a permanent position at its
Fayetteville, Tenn., facility because he disclosed a felony conviction on his
application - even though the company hired a White applicant a year earlier
who made a similar disclosure. EEOC v. Franke, Inc., dba Franke Foodservice
Systems, No. 3:08-cv-0515 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 26, 2009).
In
October 2008, a department store chain in Iowa entered a consent decree
agreeing to pay $50,000 and to provide other affirmative relief. EEOC had
alleged that the store chain refused to hire qualified Black job applicants for
sales, truck driver and other positions in its retail or warehouse facilities
for reasons that were not applied to successful White applicants. In addition
to the monetary relief, the consent decree requires the store chain to post a
remedial notice, provide semi-annual training to managers and supervisors on
employee and applicant rights under Title VII and employer obligations
under Title VII , and report applicant data and any future complaints related to racial
discrimination to the EEOC. EEOC v. Von Maur, No. 06-CV-182 (S.D. Iowa Apr. 19,
2006 settled Oct. 29, 2008).
In
July 2008, EEOC resolved a race discrimination and retaliation suit for
$140,000 against a Mississippi U-Haul company. The company was accused of
discriminating on the basis of race when it hired the son of a selecting
official rather than a veteran African American manager, to serve as the
company's marketing company president. The Black manager had worked for U-Haul
for ten years as a reservation manager, assistant manager, general manager,
area field manager and field relief manager, and held a bachelor's degree in
business manage¬ment as well as having received various awards for performance.
The company, however, altered the job's requirements and hired the executive's
son who lacked a college degree and had scanty experience compared with the
Black manager. The manager complained and the company disciplined and fired
him. The company has agreed to adopt an online employee handbook and other
documents spelling out company policies and practices; to post all vacancies
for marketing company president; to provide training on discrimination and
retaliation to all board members; and to provide periodic reports to the EEOC.
EEOC v. U-Haul Co. of Mississippi, Civil Action No. 3:06cv516 (S.D. Miss. filed
July 2008).
In
June 2008, a beauty supply chain agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a race
discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC charged that it rescinded a job offer
after learning the successful applicant was Black. In a deposition, the former
acting store manager of the West Orange store gave sworn testimony that she had
a telephone conversation with the district manager after the applicant had
applied, and the district manager "told [me] she didn't want another Black
person working in the store." When the selectee arrived at the store on
her starting date, she was informed that she could not be hired due to her race
because there would have been too many African Americans at the store. EEOC v.
Sally Beauty Supply LLC, Civil Action No. 1:07cv644 (E.D. Tex. settled June 23,
2008).
In
September 2007, EEOC upheld an Administrative Judge's (AJ) default judgment in
favor of complainant, a Staff Nurse Supervisor, who had alleged race
discrimination when she was not selected for a Nurse Manager position. The AJ
sanctioned the agency for failing to timely investigate the complaint. Relief
included retroactive promotion, back pay and a tailored order to allow
complainant to submit her request for fees incurred solely for the successful
prosecution of the appeal. Royal v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal
No. 0720070045 (Sep. 10, 2007).
In
January 2007, the Commission found discrimination based on race
(African-American) when a federal employee was not selected for the position of
Criminal Investigator despite plainly superior qualifications as compared to
the selectee. The manager who recommended the selectee, ignored complainant's
qualifications and was reported to have previously told another
African-American applicant that his "Black ass would never become a
special agent." The Commission affirmed the AJ's finding of discrimination
and ordered the retroactive promotion of complainant, back pay, compensatory
damages ($75,000), attorney's fees, and other relief. Green v. Department of
Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060058 (January 19, 2007).
In
November 2006, the Commission found that a federal employee had been
discriminated against based on his race (Asian/Pacific Islander) when he was
not selected for the position of Social Insurance Specialist. The Commission
affirmed the AJ's finding that the agency's articulated reason for failing to
select complainant -- the selectee was "highly recommended" to the
selecting official -- was not worthy of belief since complainant was
"definitely recommended" and that discrimination more likely
motivated the agency's decision. The Commission ordered the retroactive
promotion of complainant, back pay, compensatory damages ($5,000), attorney's
fees, and other relief. Paras v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060049 (November 6,
2006).
In
August 2006, a federal appellate court in Illinois reversed a negative trial
court ruling and decided that the EEOC had produced sufficient evidence to
proceed to trial in its race discrimination case against Target Corporation, a major
retailer. According to the lawsuit, an interviewing official for the company
refused to schedule interviews for four Black applicants seeking entry-level
management positions because of their race. The Commission's evidence included
inculpatory tester evidence and expert testimony indicating that the names and
voices of the Black applicants, as well as some of the organizational
affiliations (e.g. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.) disclosed on their
resumes, could have served as proxies for race. EEOC v. Target Corporation, 460
F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 2006).
Customer/Patient Preference
In
September 2013, Hurley Medical Center entered into a 5-year agreement with the
EEOC to settle its lawsuit alleging that a White father reportedly demanded no
African-American nurses treat his newborn baby. Four nurses filed
discrimination lawsuits after a Hurley staff member allegedly posted a note
with the father's instructions. Pursuant to the agreement, the EEOC will
conduct non-discrimination training for all Hurley staff each year and will
examine any progress made to see if more needs to be done. Hurley also agreed
to pay about $200,000 in March to settle a lawsuit filed by three nurses.
Hurley also agreed to pay about $200,000 in March to settle a lawsuit filed by
three nurses. "In the Matter of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and Tonya Battle, Charging Party, and Hurley Medical Center,
Respondent," Detroit Field Office, September 26, 2013. See also Resolution
Agreement between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for
Civil Rights and Hurley Medical Center, 13-156114, (July 31, 2014 available at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/activities/agreements/hurley.html).
In
December 2010, a company which provides in-home care certified nursing
assistants (CNAs) and non-CNAs to seniors in Anne Arundel County and Howard
County, Maryland agreed to settle claims alleging that it discriminated based
on race in assigning caregivers. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the company
coded the preferences of clients who requested White caregivers, and made
assignments based on the preferences. For example, "circle dots"
referred to the clients that preferred Caucasian caregivers. The facility
claimed that it ceased the coding practice in 2008, but admitted that it
continued to take client racial preferences into account in making caregiver
assignments. The 5-year consent decree provides $150,000 in compensatory damages
to be distributed to claimants (defined as all caregivers employed by defendant
from October 2007 through entry of the decree) in amounts determined by EEOC
based on length of service and employment status. The decree enjoins the
company from racial coding and prohibits race-based caregiver assignments. The
injunction survives the decree. Where a client indicates a preference not to
have a caregiver of a certain race, and there is a risk that the client will
become violent, the facility will notify the caregiver, who can choose to
refuse the assignment. The company also will provide 2 hours of training
annually to recruiters and HR personnel on Title VII, with a special emphasis
on the discriminatory assignment of caregivers based on the racial preferences of
clients.EEOC v. HiCare, Inc., dba Home Instead Senior Care, No. 1:10-CV-02692
(D. Md. Dec. 10, 2010).
In
July 2010, Plaintiff Brenda Chaney and the EEOC as amicus curiae obtained a
reversal of a summary judgment in favor of an employer in a Title VII case that "pit[ted] a
[Black] health-care worker's right to a non-discriminatory workplace against a
patient's demand for [W]hite-only health-care providers." In this
race-based action, an Indiana nursing home housed a White resident who did not
want any assistance from Black health-care staff. The facility complied with
the patient's request by informing Plaintiff "in writing everyday that 'no
Black' assistants should enter this resident's room or provide her with
care." Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the facility's acquiescence to
the racial biases of its residents is illegal and created a hostile work
environment. She also asserted that her termination was racially motivated. On
appeal, the Seventh Circuit unanimously rejected the facility's argument that
Indiana's patient-rights law permitted such practice and remanded the case for
trial because the "the racial preference policy violates Title VII by
creating a hostile work environment and because issues of fact remain over
whether race motivated the discharge." Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare
Center, 612 F .3d 908 (7th Cir. 2010).
In
December 2007, a Minnesota-based frozen food home delivery service agreed to
pay $87,250 and provide Title VII training to settle an EEOC race discrimination
case alleging that the company discriminated against qualified African-American
job applicants at its Missouri facility. EEOC alleged that the company refused
to hire Black applicants because it was concerned that its customers would be
uncomfortable with a Black man coming to their home and would be intimidated by
him. Consequently, despite promising the Black applicant he would be hired for
a warehouse position, the company hired a less qualified White applicant. EEOC
v. Schwan's Home Services, Inc., No. 4:07-CV-00221-AGF (E.D. Mo. settled Dec.
17, 2007).
In
April 2007, a Pennsylvania hot dog franchise entered a consent decree with the
EEOC agreeing to pay $7,500, to post a remedial notice in the restaurant, to
semi-annually report on any future complaints alleging racial discrimination to
the EEOC for a period of four years, and to provide Title VII training to all supervisors
and managers. In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that the franchise ordered the
store manager to fire the African American employees because the student
patrons did not like to be waited on by them. After firing several of the Black
employees, the store manager resigned in protest and the general manager fired
the remaining African American employees himself. The consent decree also enjoins
The Original Hot Dog Shop from creating, tolerating, or fostering a hostile
work environment based on race.EEOC v. The Original Hot Dog Shop, No.
06-CV-1243-JFC-RCM (W.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2007).
In
October 2005, the EEOC obtained $650,000 for named claimants and an additional
$70,000 for "unknown class members" in a Title VII lawsuit alleging that the
owner of assisted living and other senior facilities in 14 states engaged in
discriminatory hiring practices based on race and/or color. Specifically, the
lawsuit alleged that defendant's former general manager refused to hire Blacks
and other non-Caucasian applicants into nursing support, food service, and
housekeeping positions at an assisted living facility and coded the
applications of minority applicants because she believed residents preferred
White employees and did not want minorities to come into their rooms.
Additionally, defendant failed to retain employment applications as required by
EEOC's regulations implementing section 709(c) of Title VII . Pursuant to a 42-month
consent, defendant is prohibited from discriminating or retaliating and is
required to advise recruiting sources that it hires without regard to race or
color. EEOC v. Merrill Gardens, LLC, No. 1:05-CV-004 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 2005)
In
September 2005, the nation's largest maker and retailer of wooden play systems
agreed to pay six people a total of $275,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit, which
alleged that the company's owner pursued a policy of limiting the hiring and
promotion opportunities of African Americans and Hispanics and fired a White
district manager in retaliation for recommending two Blacks for district
manager openings after telling him that "our customers can't relate to
minorities and therefore we must be choosy who we hire." EEOC v. Creative
Playthings, Inc., No. 04-cv-3243 (E.D. Pa. press release issued Sep. 15, 2005).
In
March 2004, EEOC settled a failure to promote case for $45,000, in which the
company's president and CEO defended its action by arguing that the company was
in "redneck country" and customers would not accept a Black man as an
account manager. EEOC v. Frontier Materials Corp., No. H-03-856 (S.D. Tex. Mar.
2, 2004).
Hispanic/Foreign Preference
In
September 2016, Resource Employment Solutions, LLC, a temporary staffing
agency, will pay $435,000 to settle a race and national origin discrimination
lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The Commission claimed that the company illegally
granted placement preferences to Hispanic temps over African American temps.
Specifically, the company allegedly violated federal law by failing to place a
class of African American workers into temporary shipping positions at a FedEx
SmartPost location in Southaven, Mississippi. Instead, the staffing agency
granted placement preferences to Hispanic workers and also retaliated against
an African American employee who complained of the discrimination by refusing
to place her and denying her a promotion. The four-year consent decree also
includes provisions requiring anti-discrimination training, reporting, and
postings. EEOC v. Resource Employment Solutions, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-00217-MPM-SAA (N.D. Miss. Aug. 29, 2016).
In
July 2016, J&R Baker Farms LLC agreed to pay $205,000 and comply with the
terms of a consent decree to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging the Georgia farm
favored foreign-born employees over African American and Caucasian domestic
workers in employment. Specifically, the suit alleged that Baker Farms gave
American-born workers fewer hours and tasks compared with the foreign-born
workers and discharged U.S.-born white and African-American employees based on
their race or national origin. The lawsuit also alleged that Baker Farms
segregated work crews by national origin and race. The U.S.-born employees were
allegedly subjected to tougher production standards and sent home early on days
in which the foreign-born workers continued to work. The settlement requires
Baker Farms to stop discriminatory practices on the basis of national origin or
race, refrain from automatically filling jobs with H-2A workers, or foreign
nationals who receive a visa to fill temporary agricultural jobs, without first
considering American workers and institute a formal anti-discrimination policy
by Aug. 1, in addition to the monetary relief. The two-year consent decree also
requires the farm must hold interviews at the Georgia Department of Labor at
least one day a week for two weeks "before the start of each H-2A
season," and provide to the EEOC upon request a list of those people they
hired, including their names, phone numbers, addresses and national origin, in
addition to applicants not hired and those whom they fired, including any
claims of discrimination, with those same details. EEOC v. J&R Baker Farms
LLC, No. 7:14-cv-00136 (M.D. Ga. July 6, 2016).
In
April 2016, Lawler Foods, a large local bakery, agreed to settle for $1 million
an EEOC race and national origin discrimination class case. The EEOC alleged
that Lawler violated Title VII by engaging in a pattern or practice of
intentionally failing to hire black and other non-Hispanic applicants for jobs,
and by using hiring practices, including word-of-mouth recruiting and
advertising a Spanish-language preference, that had an adverse disparate impact
on black and other non-Hispanic applicants without any business justification.
In addition to the monetary claims fund, the four-year consent decree provides
for extensive injunctive relief, including recruiting and hiring of blacks and
non-Hispanic job applicants, and training for managers. Additionally, Lawler
will seek to recruit and hire black and other non-Hispanic job applicants for
its production jobs; conduct an extensive self-assessment of its hiring to
ensure non-discrimination and compliance with the terms of the consent decree;
conduct employee training to further its non-discrimination commitment; and
designate an internal leader to prioritize compliance with the requirements of
the consent decree. EEOC v. Lawlor Foods, Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-03588 (Apr.
26, 2016).
In
July 2014, EEOC filed a lawsuit against AutoZone alleging the company unjustly
fired a Chicago man for refusing to be transferred because of his race. The
complaint alleges that AutoZone attempted in 2012 to redistribute the
non-Hispanic workers at its auto parts retail location at S. Kedzie Ave and W.
49th Street in Gage Park. The EEOC claims that the company wanted to broaden
the number of Hispanics at the store to better reflect its customer base. The EEOC
said that when an African American sales manager was allegedly told to report
to another store on the far South Side, he was fired for refusing the transfer.
EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 1:14cv5579 (7th Cir. complaint filed July 22,
2014).
In
December 2012, Hamilton Growers, Inc., doing business as Southern Valley Fruit
and Vegetable, Inc., an agricultural farm in Norman Park, Ga., agreed to pay
$500,000 to a class of American seasonal workers - many of them
African-American - who, the EEOC alleged, were subjected to discrimination
based on their national origin and/or race, the agency announced today. The
agreement resolves a lawsuit filed by the EEOC in September 2011. The EEOC's
suit had charged that the company unlawfully engaged in a pattern or practice
of discrimination against American workers by firing virtually all American
workers while retaining workers from Mexico during the 2009, 2010 and 2011
growing seasons. The agency also alleged that Hamilton Growers fired at least
16 African-American workers in 2009 based on race and/or national origin as
their termination was coupled with race-based comments by a management
official. Additionally, the lawsuit charged that Hamilton Growers provided
lesser job opportunities to American workers by assigning them to pick
vegetables in fields which had already been picked by foreign workers, which
resulted in Americans earning less pay than their Mexican counterparts. EEOC v.
Hamilton Growers, Inc., No. 7:11-cv-134 (M.D. Ga. Consent decree entered Dec. 10,
2012).
In
December 2012, EEOC and a North Carolina printing firm settled for $334,000 a
lawsuit alleging the firm violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by not placing
non-Hispanic workers in its "core group" of regular temporary workers
who perform the company's light bindery production jobs and giving
disproportionately more work hours to Hispanic workers. Under the proposed
two-year consent decree, PBM Graphics Inc. would place the settlement funds in
escrow for distribution later among non-Hispanic workers identified by EEOC as
victims of the alleged national origin discrimination. EEOC v. PBM Graphics
Inc., No. 11-805 (M.D.N.C. proposed consent decree filed 12/10/12).
In
October 2012, a Hampton Inn franchise in Craig, Colorado agreed to pay $85,000
to resolve a race and national origin discrimination lawsuit regarding the
terminations of three Caucasian and non-Latino employees. According to the
lawsuit, the general manager of the hotel allegedly was told by the business
owners "to hire more qualified maids, and that they preferred maids to be
Hispanic because in their opinion Hispanics worked harder" and that White
or non-Hispanic workers were indolent. EEOC v. Century Shree Corp. &
Century Rama Inc., Case No. 11-cv-2558-REB-CBS (D. Colo. Oct. 2, 2012).
In
September 2012, an Indianapolis hotel agreed to pay $355,000 to settle a job
discrimination case with the EEOC. The Hampton Inn is accused of firing Black
housekeepers because of their race and retaliating against those who had complained.
According to the EEOC, the general manager of the Hampton Inn hotel advised her
employees that she wanted to get "Mexicans" in who would clean better
and complain less than her black housekeeping staff, even if the Hispanic hires
were equally or less qualified than Black candidates. In addition to the
monetary relief, the hotel must offer three of those employees their next
available housekeeping positions and train any employees involved in the hiring
process. EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-1234 (S.D.
Ind. Sep. 21, 2010).
In
September 2010, the EEOC sued an Indianapolis hotel for denying employment to
Black housekeeping applicants, offering lower pay and hours to Black
housekeeping staff, terminating Black housekeeping staff who complained of the
less favorable treatment, and destroying employment records since at least
September 2, 2008 because of the hotel's preference for Hispanic workers.
According to the EEOC, the general manager of the Hampton Inn hotel located at
2311 North Shadeland Ave. advised her employees that she wanted to get
"Mexicans" in who would clean better and complain less than her Black
housekeeping staff. The EEOC's lawsuit seeks relief for a class of terminated
housekeeping employees as well as a class of Black housekeeping applicants who
sought employment at its Shadeland Avenue Hampton Inn facility between
approximately September 2, 2008 and June 2009. EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels
Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-1234 (S.D. Ind. filed Sept. 30, 2010).
In
August 2010, a judge refused to dismiss an EEOC lawsuit alleging that a freight
management company hired Hispanic workers to the exclusion of equally or more
qualified non-Hispanic employees for non-management positions at a Wal-Mart
distribution facility in Shelby, North Carolina. The court rejected the
company's claims that the EEOC had failed to state a claim in its complaint and
that the suit was barred by laches. EEOC v. Propak Logistics Inc., No. 09-00311
(W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2010).
In
August 2010, a temporary staffing agency with operations in five states
admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to pay $585,000 to settle an EEOC suit
alleging that the agency favored Hispanic workers over Black workers in hiring
at a warehouse in Memphis, Tennessee. The Commission claimed that the agency
selected Hispanics regardless of prior experience, place in line or
availability. In addition to the monetary settlement, the staffing agency will
create and publish a written hiring and placement policy prohibiting
discrimination, post such policy at its Memphis facilities, and provide race
and national origin discrimination awareness training for all recruiters, and
onsite personnel. Further, to demonstrate its strong and clear commitment to a
workplace free of race and national origin discrimination, the agency agreed
that if it advertises, it will devote a portion of its advertising budget to
placing ads in diverse media outlets.EEOC v. Paramount Staffing Inc., No.
2:06-02624 (W.D. Tenn. settled Aug. 23, 2010).
In August 2009, a Pinehurst, N.C.-based
support services company for condominium complexes and resorts paid $44,700 and
will furnish significant remedial relief to settle a race and national origin
discrimination lawsuit, alleging the company unlawfully discharged six
housekeepers because of their race (African American) and national origin
(non-Hispanic) and immediately replaced them with Hispanic workers. EEOC v.
Little River Golf, Inc., No. 1:08CV00546 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2009).
In May
2009, a Statesville, NC grocery store agreed to settle for $30,000 a lawsuit
alleging that it had fired a White, non-Hispanic meat cutter based on his race
and national origin and replaced him with a less-qualified Hispanic employee.
In addition, the store has agreed to distribute a formal, written
anti-discrimination policy, train all employees on the policy and employment
discrimination laws, and send reports to the EEOC on employees who are fired or
resign. EEOC v. West Front Street Foods LLC, d/b/a Compare Foods, No
5:08-cv-102 (W.D.N.C. settled May 19, 2009).
In
January 2008, a Charlotte, N.C supermarket chain paid $40,000 to settle an EEOC
lawsuit alleging that the supermarket fired or forced long-term Caucasian and
African American employees to resign and replaced them with Hispanic workers
after it took over a particular facility.the case. In addition to the monetary
relief, the consent decree required the company to distribute a formal, written
anti-discrimination policy; provide periodic training to all its employees on
the policy and on Title VII's prohibition against national origin and race
discrimination; send periodic reports to the EEOC concerning employees who are
fired or resign; and post a "Notice to Employees" concerning this
lawsuit. EEOC v. E&T Foods, LLC, d/b/a Compare Foods, Civil Action No
3:06-cv-318 (W.D.N.C. settled Jan. 28, 2008).
Job Segregation
In
June 2017, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary
judgment on the Commission's race segregation claim brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2), Title VII's subsection prohibiting the limiting,
classifying, or segregating of employees based on a protected trait. The court
"assume[d] for the sake of argument" that the evidence created a
material factual dispute about whether AutoZone intentionally segregated its
Black employee Kevin Stuckey because of his race when it transferred him out of
a predominantly Hispanic-staffed store. But it concluded that a jury would not
find the lateral transfer had adversely affected Stuckey's employment since he
suffered no reduction in pay, benefits, or responsibilities and it did not
"alter his conditions of employment in a detrimental way."
Nonetheless, the court rejected AutoZone's argument, accepted by the district
court below, that the absence of an "adverse employment action"
defeats a claim under § 2000e-2(a)(2). It ruled that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2)
requires only that the transfer had a "tendency to deprive a person of
employment opportunities," but concluded that there was "[n]o
evidence" in the record to make the requisite showing in this case. Id.
EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 15-3201 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017), reh'g en banc
denied (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017).
In
June 2013, the largest and oldest adult entertainment strip club in Jackson, MS
paid $50,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging that it discriminated against Black
dancers when it maintained schedules only for Black women and forced them to
compete for dancing slots on the "Black shift." The lawsuit also
alleged that the club retaliated against the Black dancers after one of them
filed a complaint with the EEOC, allegedly by reducing their work hours and
subjecting them to fines, forcing one of them to quit. Under the consent
decree, the club will implement new policies and practices designed to prevent
racial discrimination and retaliation. It also will conduct supervisor and
employee training on discrimination and retaliation laws and establish a
confidential process for people to submit discrimination and retaliation
complaints. The process will include employer protections of non-retaliation
and requirements for a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation. EEOC
officials said Danny's will also post notices at the work site, including EEOC
on new allegations of race discrimination and retaliation during the two-year
period. EEOC v. Danny's Cabaret, No. 3:10-cv-00681 (S.D. Miss. consent decree
filed June 28, 2013). In May 2013, the EEOC sued Clarksdale's Stone Pony Pizza,
alleging that the pizza place maintains a racially segregated workforce, and
that it "hired only whites for front-of-the-house positions such as server,
hostess, waitress, and bartender, and hired African-Americans for
back-of-the-house positions such as cook and dishwasher." EEOC v. Stone
Pony Pizza, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-92(SA)(JMV) (N.D. Miss. reopened after dismissal
due to bankruptcy Mar. 30, 2015).
In
November 2011, a hospital on Chicago's South Side agreed to pay $80,000 to
settle a class race, sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the
EEOC. According to the Commission's lawsuit, the hospital allegedly subjected a
class of Black female employees to different terms and conditions of employment
and segregation in job assignments because of their race. The suit also alleged
that at least one of the women was demoted in retaliation for opposing and
complaining about unlawful employment practices. Further, the agency's
administrative investigation revealed that numerous Black female medical
technicians at the hospital appear to have been required to perform assignments
that their male Asian-Indian counterparts were allegedly not required to perform.
The two-year consent decree resolving the case enjoins the hospital from
engaging in further race and/or sex discrimination or retaliation. The consent
decree also requires that the hospital provide training to all employees,
including supervisory employees, in its Cardiopulmonary Department; that it
submit periodic reports to EEOC about any complaints of sex and/or race
discrimination or retaliation; and that it post a notice at various locations
within its facility regarding the outcome of this lawsuit. EEOC v. Jackson Park
Hosp. & Med. Ctr., No. 11 C 04743 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2011).
In
September 2010, the owner of a strip club settled for $95,000 a race
discrimination lawsuit, alleging that two African-American doormen were
harassed, segregated and provided different terms and conditions of employment
because of their race. The managers of the club used racial slurs when speaking
of and to the doormen, forced them to work in the back of the club instead of
at the entrance, and complained that "black music makes the club look
bad." In addition to the monetary damages, the 30-month consent decree
provided injunctive relief, required the company to post a notice about the
settlement, and obligated the company to conduct anti-discrimination training and
to report race discrimination complaints. EEOC v. Papermoon-Stuart, Inc., No.
0:09-cv-14316 (S.D. Fla. settled September 28, 2010).
In
September 2010, the EEOC commenced a lawsuit against a giant shipping and
delivery service for subjecting a class of African-American employees to
different job assignments because of their race. The EEOC's administrative
investigation found that African-American drivers were assigned to
predominately Black neighborhoods and White drivers to White neighborhoods. Furthermore,
the investigation revealed that African-American employees were assigned to
more difficult and dangerous work than Caucasian employees. EEOC v. DHL Express
(USA), Inc., No. 1:10-cv-06139 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 24, 2010).
In
June 2010, EEOC and an Atlanta home builder settled for $378,500 a suit
alleging the company unlawfully discriminated by assigning Black sales
employees to neighborhoods based on race, failing to promote African Americans
or women to management, and harassing an employee who complained. EEOC v. John
Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods Inc., No. 1-09-CV-1151 (N.D. Ga. consent decree
approved June 22, 2010).
In
September 2009, a supply company in Arizona agreed to pay $49,500 to settle an
EEOC lawsuit that alleged the company assigned an African American employee and
his Hispanic team member to less desirable, lower-paying jobs than their
Caucasian counterparts because of the Black employee's race. Additionally, the
lawsuit alleged that the supervisor responsible for determining job assignments
used racial slurs such as "pinche negro," the n-word, and other
racially derogatory comments to refer to the Black employee. The consent decree
enjoins the company from engaging in racial discrimination. Additionally, the
decree requires the company to implement and post written anti-discrimination
policies and procedures, to provide training on race discrimination for all
personnel and neutral references for the claimants, and to report to the EEOC
any changes to its anti-discrimination policies and any future complaints
alleging racial discrimination. EEOC v. L&W Supply Co., Case No.
2:07-cv-01364-JWS (D. Ariz. settled Sept. 2, 2009).
In
June 2009, a federal district court granted summary judgment for a
Michigan-based freight and trucking company on all race discrimination claims
asserted by the EEOC and the claimant. EEOC had alleged that the company
refused to hire a Black female applicant for a part-time customer service
position, even after she was designated best qualified and had passed the
requisite drug test. According to the lawsuit, the company's regional manager
vetoed her hire because he was concerned about a Black customer service
representative working with customers and drivers in southeast Missouri. On
September 22, 2010, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court on all
federal law claims and remanded the claimant's state law claim. On January 7,
2011, the district court dismissed the claimant's state law claim without
prejudice 'EEOC v. Con-way Freight, Inc., No. 4:07-cv-01638 (E.D. Mo. June 17,
2009).
In May
2009 a North Carolina-based restaurant entered a three-year consent decree to
pay $14,700 and provide a positive letter of reference for the claimant. The
EEOC had alleged that the restaurant refused to hire an African American
employee for a bartender position because of his race. According to the
complaint, the Black employee sought and was qualified for the bartender
position, but the restaurant hired him as a server and refused to place him in
the bartender position on several occasions when it became available. Evidence
indicated that the restaurant had a practice of hiring only White people as
bartenders. Eventually, the Black employee resigned because he believed he
would never be placed in the bartender position. . The consent decree enjoins
the restaurant from discriminating based on race in hiring or promotion into
the bartender position, requires the restaurant to adopt a written
anti-discrimination policy, provide Title VII training to all managers and
supervisors, keep records related to any future complaints alleging racial
discrimination in hiring or promotion, and submit reports to the EEOC. The
restaurant must also keep records on the hiring of and promotion into the
bartender position. EEOC v. Chelda, Inc. and Charmike Holdings, LLC, dba Ham's
Restaurant, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00236 (W.D.N.C. May 12, 2009).
In
March 2008, a national restaurant chain entered a consent decree agreeing to
pay $30,000 to resolve an EEOC case charging that the company gave
African-American food servers inferior and lesser-paying job assignments by
denying them assignments of larger parties with greater resulting tips and
income, by denying them better paying assignments to banquets at the
restaurant, and by failing on some occasions to give them assignments to any
customers. The consent decree enjoins the restaurant from engaging in racial
discrimination and requires the chain to post a remedial notice and amend and
distribute its anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies. The amended
policies must state that prohibited racial discrimination in "all other
employment decisions" includes, but is not limited to, making decisions
and providing terms and conditions of employment such as pay, assignments, working
conditions, and job duties; also, it must prohibit retaliation. In addition,
the company must revise its complaint mechanism and clarify and expand its
website and toll-free phone number for the reporting of incidents of employment
discrimination. The consent decree also requires the restaurant to provide
training in equal employment opportunity laws for all of its employees and to
appoint an Equal Employment Office Coordinator, who will be responsible for
investigating discrimination complaints. EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick's
Restaurant Corp, No. 06-cv-7806 (S.D.N.Y. March 17, 2008).
In
January 2008, a bakery café franchise in Florida entered a two-year consent
decree that enjoined the company from engaging in racial discrimination or
retaliation and required it to pay $101,000 to the claimants. EEOC had alleged
that the company segregated the Black employees from non-Black employees and
illegally fired a class of Black employees in violation of Title VII . Under the consent decree,
the principal of the company must attend an eight-hour training session on
equal employment opportunity laws. The decree also mandated that if the company
ever re-opens the franchise in question or any other store, it must distribute
its anti-discrimination policy to all employees, post a remedial notice, and
report any future complaints alleging race-based discrimination.EEOC v. Atlanta
Bread Co., International and ARO Enterprise of Miami, Inc., No. 06-cv-61484
(S.D. Fla. January 4, 2008).
In
July 2007, EEOC and Walgreens agreed to a proposed settlement of $20 million to
resolve allegations that the Illinois-based national drug store chain engaged
in systemic race discrimination against African American retail management and
pharmacy employees in promotion, compensation and assignment. In addition to
the monetary relief for an estimated 10,000 class members, the consent decree
prohibits store assignments based on race. EEOC v. Walgreen Co., No.
07-CV-172-GPM; Tucker v. Walgreen Co. No. 05-CV-440-GPM (S.D. Ill. July 12,
2007).
In
March 2007, the owners of a Louisiana motel agreed to pay $140,000 to charging
party and three other claimants who alleged that the motel would not hire them
for front-desk positions because they are African American. The company also
agreed not to exclude any African American employee or applicant for the
front-desk day positions based on their race for any future businesses it may
operate. The consent decree further requires it to maintain a complaint
procedure to encourage employees to file internal good faith complaints
regarding race discrimination and retaliation. United States v. Sunrise
Hospitality BC-II LLC, No. 5:06cv1684 (W.D. La., consent decree entered Mar.
27, 2007).
In
April 2006, EEOC obtained $450,000 to settle a race discrimination case in
which a health care provider explained its refusal to hire "Blacks or
Jews" for a client in Oregon by arguing that it was protecting the safety
of its employees, especially in areas where the KKK is active. EEOC v. Health
Help, Inc., 03-1204 PHX RGS (D. Ariz. Apr. 2006).
In
November 2017, the EEOC reversed the Department of Homeland Security's (Agency)
finding of no race discrimination on the Complainant's allegation that the
Agency discriminated against him based on race when it issued him Letters of
Counseling for unprofessional conduct and missing a duty call. In reversing the
Agency's decision finding no discrimination, the Commission found that the
issuances of the disciplinary actions giving rise to these claims was motivated
by discriminatory animus based on Complainant's race. Specifically, the
Commission found that the discipline issued was disproportionate and lacked
uniformity, and the record showed that other employees were not disciplined for
engaging in similar conduct. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to
rescind the Letters and remove them from Complainant's personnel record, as
well as adjust any subsequent discipline that was based on the Letters. The
Commission affirmed the Agency's finding of no discrimination with respect to
other matters raised in the complaint. Erwin B. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC
Appeal No. 0120151276 (May 15, 2017), request for reconsideration denied EEOC
Request No. 0520170446 (Nov. 3, 2017).
In
August 2017, the EEOC affirmed an Administrative Judge's finding that the
Department of Defense (Agency) had discriminated against Complainant when it
did not select him for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge position. Following
a hearing, the AJ found that the Agency failed to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for Complainant's non-selection. While the Agency
asserted that Complainant was not promoted because he did not pass an annual
physical fitness exam, Agency managers testified that the supervisory position
would involve more administrative work than Complainant's position and there
would not be a substantial change in the physical requirements. Further, the AJ
noted that the selection criteria was changed for one candidate who did not
meet the requirements but not for Complainant. Complainant also stated that the
Director, who was extensively involved in the selection yet did not testify at
the hearing, made several comments that revealed a discriminatory intent. The
AJ questioned the Director's credibility, finding that there were considerable
gaps in the Director's statements. The Commission affirmed the AJ's findings on
appeal, and noted that even if the Agency met its burden of providing a
legitimate reason for Complainant's non-selection, the evidence supported a
finding of pretext. Specifically, Complainant was considered the best candidate
by his second-level supervisor, and the record showed that Complainant was
better qualified than the selectee. The Agency was ordered, among other things,
to place Complainant into the position or a similar position, with appropriate
back pay and benefits, and pay him proven compensatory damages. Kenny C. v.
Dep't of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0720150030 (Aug. 29, 2017).
In
March 2017, the EEOC settled its contempt action against Baby O's Restaurant,
dba Danny's Downtown, a Jackson-based provider of adult entertainment services.
The contempt action charged that Danny's breached the terms of an agreement it
entered into with the EEOC to resolve a racial discrimination and retaliation
lawsuit. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Danny's subjected four
African-American females to unlawful race discrimination and retaliation. The
EEOC charged that Black entertainers were subjected to a variety of less
advantageous terms and conditions of employment than White ones. The misconduct
included subjecting African-American entertainers to arbitrary fees and fines,
forcing them to work on less lucrative shifts, and excluding them from company
advertisements, all because of their race.
The EEOC also charged that Danny's retaliated
against the entertainers by reducing their work hours when one of them engaged
in activity protected by law, including filing a discrimination charge with the
EEOC. The EEOC alleged the retaliation was so severe that one of the
entertainers was forced to leave her employment. In June 2013, the company
entered into a consent decree agreeing to pay $50,000 in relief to the Black
females who had been subjected to the racial discrimination and retaliation.
The decree also provided for significant injunctive relief, including revising
the company's anti-discrimination policy; promulgating and disseminating it to
employees; providing a copy of that policy to the EEOC; providing mandatory
Title VII training to supervisory and
non-supervisory employees and entertainers; making periodic reports of its
compliance to the EEOC; and posting a notice the policy in its workplace. After
paying the $50,000, Danny's failed to comply with the rest of the decree. The
Commission filed a contempt action, and on March 2, 2017, the court approved an
amended consent decree that extended the injunctive requirements of the decree
by one year. EEOC v. Baby O's Restaurant dba Danny's Downtown, Civil Action No.
3:12-CV-681-DPF-FKB (SD. Miss. Mar. 2, 2017).
In
December 2016, a south Alabama steel manufacturing plant agreed to pay $150,000
as part of a three-year consent decree to resolve an EEOC lawsuit. In June
2015, EEOC filed a lawsuit accusing Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC of not
promoting workers at its Calvert plant because of their race. The Commission
said certain Black workers were highly qualified to become Team Leaders, but
the company hired White applicants who were less qualified for the job. In
addition to the $150,000 payment, Outokumpu agrees to take specified actions
designed to prevent future discrimination, including implementing new policies
and practices designed to prevent race discrimination in employment decisions,
providing anti-discrimination training to employees, and the posting of
anti-discrimination notices in its workplace. EEOC v. Outokumpu Stainless USA,
LLC, No. 1:13-cv-00473-WS-N (S.D. Ala. Dec. 2016).
In
June 2015, Dollar General Corporation paid $32,500 and furnish other relief to
settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In its lawsuit, the
EEOC charged that Dollar General refused on at least three separate occasions
to promote a Black employee to a vacant assistant store manager position at its
Long Beach, Miss., store because of her race. The EEOC alleged that she had
expressed interest in promotion and had substantial qualifications, but Dollar
General instead hired less-qualified white applicants. The suit further alleged
that Dollar General subjected the Black employee to increasing hostility and
discipline after she complained about the unequal treatment. The company denied
the allegations in court. The court denied Dollar General's motion for summary
judgment and the parties ultimately entered a two-year consent decree requiring
Dollar General to maintain effective anti-discrimination policies, distribute
the policies to all newly hired employees, and provide management training on
anti-discrimination laws and other injunctive relief to ensure discrimination
complaints are promptly reported and investigated. EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC
d/b/a Dollar General, No. 1: 13-cv-00383-LG-JCG (S.D. Miss. June 11, 2015).
In
July 2014, the apprenticeship school affiliated with a New Jersey construction
trade union will pay $34,500 and provide substantial remedial relief to settle
a discrimination claim by the EEOC, alleging that the Joint Apprenticeship and
Training Committee of Sheet Metal Workers Local 25 discharged a Black
apprentice because of his race just two weeks before he was to graduate from
the four-year apprenticeship program. The EEOC's findings arose from its
investigation of the apprentice's appeal of his dismissal, which he filed with
the court-appointed special master who monitors Local 25 and its JATC pursuant
to past judicial findings of race and national origin discrimination. According
to the EEOC, the JATC violated the court's previous orders by summarily
discharging the apprentice for alleged poor performance just days before he
was to complete the program and be promoted to journeyman status. The JATC
imposed this severe sanction despite the apprentice satisfactorily completing
virtually the entire eight-term program and despite his complaints about
inadequate on-the-job training from biased contractors. EEOC v. Day &
Zimmerman NPS, Inc., No. 1:71-cv-02877(LAK)(MHD) (S.D.N.Y. consent decree filed
July 11, 2014).
In
March 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the EEOC
presented sufficient evidence that two African American railroad workers were
disciplined more harshly for workplace rule violations than comparable White
employees to raise a jury issue of race discrimination under Title VII. In a
2-1 decision partially overturning a federal trial court in Louisiana, the
divided panel found that EEOC established a prima facie case of
"work-rule" discrimination against Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
on behalf of two of the four claimants. In short, the appellate court found
that a train engineer and a train conductor, both African American, were fired
following separate incidents involving operational errors while White employees
involved in the same incidents were not disciplined or were dismissed but
reinstated despite committing comparable infractions. Turner v. Kansas City S.
Ry. Co., No. 09-30558 (5th Cir. revised opinion Mar. 26, 2012).
In May
2011, a property and casualty insurance giant agreed to pay $110,000 to settle
an EEOC lawsuit alleging that it unlawfully refused to promote an Asian
employee in its Milwaukee underwriting office because of her race. The suit
further asserted that the insurance company illegally retaliated against the
employee by passing her over for job openings after she filed a discrimination
charge with EEOC. EEOC v. Fed. Ins. Co., d/b/a Chubb & Son, Case No.
2:10-cv-00849 (E.D. Wis. settled May 3, 2011).
In
November 2010, a company which transports saltwater from oil wells and has
facilities in Quitman, Arizona settled for $75,000 the EEOC's lawsuit alleging
that it subjected a Black truck driver and another Black employee at its
Quitman location to racial harassment, which included racial jokes and racially
derogatory language (e.g., "nigger"); gave them fewer work assignments
than White employees because of their race; and further reduced the driver's
work assignments because of his complaints about racial discrimination and
suspended and discharged him because of his race and his complaints about
racial discrimination. The driver complained about the racial jokes and
language to management but was suspended for 4 days following a dispute about a
work assignment, and was discharged during the suspension. The 5-year consent
decree, inter alia, enjoins the company from subjecting Black employees to
disparate working assignments based on race and from suspending and terminating
employees in retaliation for opposing practices unlawful under Title VII or for participating in Title
VII proceedings. The company is
also required to provide training for its employees on reporting and
investigating race discrimination and race harassment complaints. EEOC v.
Complete Vacuum and Rental, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00049-SWW (E.D. Ark. Nov. 8,
2010).
In
January 2012, a Henderson, Nevada-based chain of automotive dealerships agreed
to pay $150,000 to two Black employees to settle a Title VII lawsuit alleging that the
company violated federal law by engaging in discrimination, harassment and
retaliation. According to the EEOC, a parts department manager, who is White,
allegedly used the "N-word" to refer to at least two Black employees
and made racially derogatory comments and jokes on a near daily basis at the
dealership. The same manager allegedly referred to one Black employee as
"gorilla" while the employee was holding a banana. The EEOC contended
that the manager also imposed stricter work-related rules upon the dealership's
Black employees by disciplining them for conduct that non-Black employees were
not disciplined for, and giving them less favorable work assignments.
Ultimately, both Black employees were terminated, but the EEOC asserted that
one of the employees was discharged for an infraction for which non-Black
employees were not disciplined, while the other was discharged after relaying
his intention to file a charge of discrimination to the company. In addition to
the monetary relief, the company agreed to distribute a revised discrimination
and complaint policy and hire an employment consultant. EEOC v. Shack-Findlay
Automotive, LLC d/b/a Findlay Honda and Findlay Automotive Group, Inc., Case
No. 2:10-cv-01692-KJD-RJJ (D. Nev. Jan. 17, 2012).
In
June 2010, a Warren, Mich., automotive supplier paid $190,000 to settle a race
discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in which the EEOC alleged that the
supplier repeatedly overlooked qualified non-White employees, including a group
of Black employees and a Bangladeshi employee, for promotions to the
maintenance department. In addition, a White employee who opposed this type of
race discrimination and complained that managers in the maintenance department
were using racial slurs allegedly was fired shortly after the company learned
of his complaints. EEOC v. Noble Metal Processing, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-14713
(E.D. Mich. press release filed June 8, 2010).
In
March 2010, the EEOC upheld an Administrative Judge's determination that a
federal agency discriminated against a Black employee on the basis of race when
it terminated the complainant's participation in a training program. The record
showed that complainant was not rated as "marginal" and that the
Manager who made the decision to terminate complainant conceded that
complainant passed all required tests. Further, the Manger did not consult with
the instructors before making the decision, but instead relied upon one
individual who was clearly hostile toward complainant and who the AJ found was
not credible. Additionally, the environment was not favorable to Black
recruits. Two witnesses testified that they heard someone remark "one down
and two to go" when complainant turned in his equipment following his
termination. At that time, there were only three Black students in the
31-person class. One week before the class was to graduate, the third and last
Black student was removed from the program. The record also revealed that it
was the agency's policy to afford remedial training and an opportunity to correct
behavior before removing candidates from the training program. The record
indicated that the policy was followed with respect to White comparatives, but
was not followed in complainant's case. The agency was ordered to, among other
things, offer complainant reinstatement into the next training program, with
back pay. Thalamus Jones v. United States Department of Energy, EEOC Appeal No.
0720090045 (March 5, 2010).
In
January 2010, an international designer and manufacturer of medical devices agreed
to pay $250,000 to settle EEOC's Title VII lawsuit alleging race discrimination. The suit
alleged that the manufacturer subjected a Black full-time sales representative
to different terms and conditions of employment when it removed him from top
accounts, assigned him to poorer producing accounts, and then terminated him
even though he continued to perform successfully, while failing to discharge
any of the poorer performing White sales executives. The 2-year consent decree
also requires the manufacturer to rehire the Black sales rep in its North Texas
District at a higher salary with 3% commissions and relocation expenses up to
$15,000. EEOC v. Linvatech Corp. d/b/a Conmed Linvatech, No. 09-2158 (N.D. Ill.
Jan. 4, 2010).
In
December 2009, a Tennessee company that processes nuclear waste agreed to
settle claims by the EEOC that Black employees were subjected to higher levels
of radiation than others. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that, in addition to
paying them less and permitting a White manager to refer regularly to them with
the N-word and other derogatory slurs, such as "boy," the company
manipulated dosimeters of Black employees assigned to work with radioactive
waste to show lower levels of radiation than the actual ones. Under the
agreement, 23 Black employees will receive $650,000. EEOC v. Race, LLC, doing
business as Studsvik, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-2620 (W.D. Tenn. Dec.
2009).
In
June 2009, the EEOC overturned an AJ's finding of no discrimination in a Title
VII race discrimination case. Complainant alleged he was discriminated against
on the bases of race (African-American) and retaliation when he was not
selected for an of four vacant Risk Management Specialist positions.
Complainant applied for the position, was rated as qualified, interviewed for
the position, and was not selected. All four of the selectees were White. The
agency found no discrimination and complainant appealed. The Commission found
that the agency failed to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the
non-selection. The agency stated that the selectees were chosen because their
skills and qualifications fit the agency's needs. The Commission found that the
agency's reasons were not sufficiently clear so that complainant could be given
a fair opportunity to rebut such reasons. The Commission also noted that the
agency did not produce any rating sheets from the interview panel, and that
complainant appeared to possess similar qualifications to the other selectees.
Thus, the Commission found that the prima facie case and complainant's
qualifications, combined with the agency's failure to provide a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for complainant's non-selection, warranted a finding
of race discrimination. Because of this finding, the decision found it
unnecessary to address the basis of retaliation. As remedies, the agency was
ordered to place complainant into the Risk Management Specialist position with
back pay and consideration of compensatory damages, EEO training to responsible
agency officials, consideration of discipline for responsible agency officials,
attorneys fees order, and posting notice. Frazier v. United States Department
of Agriculture, EEOC Appeals No. 0120083270 (June 4, 2009).
In
August 2009, a Washington Park, Ill., packaging and warehousing company agreed
to pay $57,500 and provide training to settle a race discrimination and
retaliation lawsuit alleging that the company failed to provide a Black
employee the pay raise and health insurance coverage provided to his White
co-workers, and then fired him in retaliation for filing a charge of race
discrimination with the EEOC. EEOC v. Material Resources, LLC, d/b/a Gateway
Co-Packing Co., No. 3:08-245-MJR (S.D. Ill. August 14, 2009).
In
January 2008, the EEOC settled a race and national origin discrimination case
against a Nevada U-Haul company for $153,000. The EEOC had charged that the
company subjected Hispanic and Asian/Filipino employees to derogatory comments
and slurs based on their race and/or national origin. Hispanic employees also
were subjected to comments such as "go back to Mexico." In addition,
Filipino mechanics were denied promotions while less qualified White employees
were promoted. The EEOC also charged that Hispanic and Filipino employees were
told they had to be "White to get ahead" at the company. As part of
the injunctive relief, U-Haul further agreed to provide training to all
employees in its Nevada locations, and provide annual reports to the EEOC
regarding its employment practices in its Nevada branches. EEOC v. U-Haul
Company of Nevada, Case No. 2:06-CV-01209-JCM-LRL(D.Nev. settled Jan. 28, 2008).
In May
2008, in New Capital Dimensions case the EEOC resolved a race discrimination
and retaliation suit against a North Georgia restaurant chain for $135,000. The
lawsuit alleged that a White male store manager ordered all the African
American employees to be strip-searched in response to a White cashier's drawer
turning up $100 short. When advised about the missing money by the store
manager, the White cashier asserted she knew nothing about it and was permitted
to leave without being searched. When the Black employees complained about the
discriminatory treatment, the manager fired them. The consent decree also
includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting, and
posting of anti-discrimination notices. EEOC v. New Capital Dimensions, Inc.,
dba Krystal Restaurant2:08-cv-00089-RWS (N.D. Ga. Settled May 21, 2008).
In
September 2007, the Commission upheld an AJ's determination that complainant
was discriminated against on the bases of race (Asian American), national
origin (Japanese), sex (female), and/or in retaliation for prior EEO activity
when: (1) she received an unsatisfactory interim performance rating; (2) she
was demoted from her GS-14 Section Chief position; and (3) management's actions
created and allowed a hostile work environment. The agency was ordered to
restore leave; pay complainant $50,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages
and $6,944.00 in pecuniary compensatory damages; and pay $45,517.50 in
attorney's fees and $786.39 for costs. Sugawara-Adams v. EPA, EEOC Appeal No.
0720070050 (Sep. 10, 2007).
In
July 2007, the Sixth Circuit agreed in part with EEOC's amicus argument that a
district court improperly granted summary judgment against a Black
rehabilitation aide because she presented sufficient evidence - whether
categorized as "direct" or "circumstantial" - that race was
a factor motivating her employer's decision not to promote her. This evidence
included a White manager's statement that if the Black recommending official
hired the Black aide based on her the strength of her interview and her
demonstrated ability to interact and work one-on-one with clients, "people
are going to think" nonetheless that she was selected "because she
was Black." The manager hired a White candidate with more seniority. On
appeal, the circuit court decided that "the subject of race was improperly
introduced into the selection process and used as a consideration in [the] hiring
decision" and that the manager's decision was motivated by the aide's race
and not the selectee's experience or seniority. The court then reversed summary
judgment and remanded the case for trial. Brewer v. Cedar Lake Lodge, Inc., No.
06-6327 (6th Cir. July 31, 2007) (unpublished opinion).
In
September 2006, EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that a nonprofit organization
that provides rehabilitation services for people with disabilities
discriminated against four African-American employees because of their race
(delayed promotion, unfair discipline, and termination) and retaliated against
three of them for complaining about racially disparate working conditions,
reduction of working hours, discipline, and termination. Under the 3-year consent
decree, four Black employees will share $400,000 in monetary relief and the
organization will increase one Black employee's hours to no less than 20 per
week to restore her eligibility for various employment benefits. EEOC v.
Richmond of New York d/b/a Richmond Children's Center, No. 05-CV-8342
(SCR)(MDF) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2006).
In
February 2006, the Commission settled for $275,000 a Title VII lawsuit alleging that
defendant, an aviation services company, subjected Charging Party to
discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, discipline, and demotion
based on race, Black. After six years as a line service technician, defendant
promoted Charging Party to supervisor. Defendant did not announce the promotion
until two months after Charging Party had begun the new job and did not issue
Charging Party a cell telephone or a company e-mail address during his tenure
in the position. In contrast, defendant announced the promotion of Charging
Party's White successor within three days and issued him a cell telephone and a
company e-mail address immediately. Just 4½ months after promoting Charging
Party, defendant reprimanded him and demoted him. EEOC v. Signature Flight
Support Corp., No. C 05 1101 CW (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2006).
In May
2005, the EEOC obtained a $500,000 settlement against a nursing facility in
Puyallup, Washington for alleged violations of Title VII , which included the all-White
care management team preparing a care plan incorporating a White family's
request that no "colored girls" work with the resident; tolerating
frequent use of racial slurs, including reference to a Black nurse as a
"slave;" assigning Black nurses to the night shift, while giving
White nurses the more desirable day shifts; assigning Black and White employees
to separate lunchtimes and lunchrooms; and twice-denying a Black nurse a
promotion a staffing position for which she had several years of experience and
was highly qualified. EEOC v. Central Park Lodges Long Term Care, Inc., d/b/a
Linden Grove Health Care Center, No. 04-5627 RBL (W.D. Wash. consent decree
filed May 13, 2005).
Compensation Disparity
In
August 2015, the district court denied a motion to dismiss by J&R Baker
Farms LLC and J&R Baker Farms Partnership in a lawsuit brought by the EEOC.
The EEOC had alleged that the Farms subjected American workers, most of whom
were African American, to discrimination based on national origin and race at
their Colquitt County location. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the employer
favored foreign born workers or workers they believed to be foreign born, while
engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against White American and
African American workers. The agency alleges that all American workers were
discriminatorily discharged, subjected to different terms and conditions of
employment, and provided fewer work opportunities, based on their national
origin and/or race. Regarding the disparate terms and conditions, the agency
alleges that work start times were habitually delayed for White American and
African American workers, that they were sent home early while foreign workers
continued to work, and that they were subjected to production standards not
imposed on foreign born workers. These practices led to all American workers
receiving less pay than their foreign born counterparts. EEOC v. J&R Baker
Farms LLC, et. al, No. 7:14-CV-136 (M.D. Ga. dismissal order filed Aug. 11,
2015).
In
December 2012, Hamilton Growers, Inc., doing business as Southern Valley Fruit
and Vegetable, Inc., an agricultural farm in Norman Park, Ga., agreed to pay
$500,000 to a class of American seasonal workers - many of them
African-American - who, the EEOC alleged, were subjected to discrimination
based on their national origin and/or race, the agency announced today. The
agreement resolves a lawsuit filed by the EEOC in September 2011. The EEOC's
suit had charged that the company unlawfully engaged in a pattern or practice
of discrimination against American workers by firing virtually all American
workers while retaining workers from Mexico during the 2009, 2010 and 2011
growing seasons. The agency also alleged that Hamilton Growers fired at least
16 African-American workers in 2009 based on race and/or national origin as
their termination was coupled with race-based comments by a management
official; . provided lesser job opportunities to American workers by assigning
them to pick vegetables in fields which had already been picked by foreign
workers, which resulted in Americans earning less pay than their Mexican
counterparts; and regularly subjected American workers to different terms and
conditions of employment, including delayed starting times and early stop
times, or denied the opportunity to work at all, while Mexican workers were
allowed to continue working. The settlement provides monetary relief to 19
persons who filed charges with the agency and other American workers harmed by
the practices.
Additionally, Hamilton Growers agreed to
exercise good faith in hiring and retaining qualified workers of American
national origin and African-American workers for all farm work positions,
including supervisory positions; will implement non-discriminatory hiring
measures, which include targeted recruitment and advertising, appointment of a
compliance official, and training for positive equal employment opportunity
management practices; will create a termination appeal process; extend rehire
offers to aggrieved individuals from the 2009-2012 growing seasons; provide
transportation for American workers; and limit contact between the alleged
discriminating management officials and American workers. The decree also
provides for posting anti-discrimination notices, record-keeping and reporting
to the EEOC. EEOC v. Hamilton Growers, Inc., Civil Action No. 7:11-CV-00134-HL
(N.D. Ga. settlement announced Dec. 13, 2012).
In
August 2011, an Obion County producer of pork sausage products paid $60,000 and
furnished other relief to settle a wage discrimination and racial harassment
lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that near Union
City violated federal law by paying an African-American maintenance worker less
than White counterparts and subjecting him to a hostile work environment. The
EEOC asserted that Williams Country Sausage gave raises and paid higher
salaries to all maintenance department employees except the department's lone
African-American employee and allegedly allowed a supervisor to regularly use
racially offensive language toward the employee because of racial animus. The
five-year consent decree enjoins the sausage company from engaging in future
race discrimination, and requires annual Title VII training on employee rights,
record-keeping of racial harassment complaints, and annual reports to the EEOC.
The decree also requires the company to establish and enforce a written policy
that will ensure that employees are protected from discrimination. EEOC v.
Williams Country Sausage, Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-01263 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 11,
2011).
In
April 2011, the EEOC and a Bedford, Ohio, auto dealership reached a $300,000
settlement of a case alleging that the dealership permitted a general manager
to harass Black employees and also discriminated against Black sales employees
with regard to pay. EEOC v. Ganley Lincoln of Bedford Inc., No. 1:07-cv-2829
(N.D. Ohio consent decree entered Apr. 19, 2011).
In
March 2011, EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that a provider of preventive
maintenance for residential and commercial heating and air conditioning
systems, which has approximately 247 employees at 13 locations within Florida,
Georgia, the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia and Maryland, violated
federal law by discriminating against non-Caucasian employees based on their
race when it paid them less than their Caucasian colleagues. Additionally, the
EEOC alleged that an African-American telemarketer was paid less than a
Caucasian telemarketer in a substantially similar job. Despite complaining to
management, the African-American employee's compensation remained the same
until she resigned. EEOC v. United Air Temp / Air Conditioning & Heating,
Inc., Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-281 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 21, 2011).
In
March 2011, a television station settled a race and sex discrimination case
filed by the EEOC for $45,000 and additional consideration. From 1996 to 2007,
an African-American female reporter was paid lower wages than a comparable White
female reporter and male reporters of all races. She was also subjected to
unequal terms and conditions of employment. In addition to the damages, the
station must post an anti-discrimination notice, publicize an
anti-discrimination policy, and provide annual race and sex discrimination
training to its employees. EEOC, et al. v. KOKH, No. 5:07-cv-01043-D (W.D.
Okla. March 4, 2011).
In
September 2010, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against a Union City, Tenn., pork
company, alleging that the company engaged in race discrimination by paying an
African-American maintenance worker less than non-Black employees, subjecting
him to a hostile work environment, and forcing him out of his job. According to
EEOC's complaint, the company gave raises and paid higher salaries to all
maintenance department employees except the department's lone African-American
employee because of racial animus and allowed a supervisor to regularly use
racially offensive language toward the Black employee, causing the employee to
quit his job to escape the abuse.EEOC v. Williams Country Sausage Co., Civil
Action No. 1:10-cv-01263 (W.D. Tenn. filed Sept. 30, 2010).
In
November 2009, a nationwide supplier of office products and services entered
into an 18-month consent decree, agreeing to pay $80,000 to an African American
account manager who EEOC alleged was denied appropriate wages because of his
race. According to EEOC's lawsuit, the complainant was hired as a junior
account manager in the supplier's Baton Rouge, Louisiana office with an annual
salary of $32,500, plus commissions. At the time of his hire, complainant was
told that after 6 to 8 months, he would be promoted to account manager with an
increase in his base salary. The supplier promoted complainant, but did not
increase his base salary. The salary of the complainant, the only African
American account manager in his region, was never increased despite good
performance or even when he assumed the accounts of two White employees who
left the company. The complainant resigned and was replaced by a White junior
account manager who earned a higher base salary than complainant had ever
earned as an account manager. Under the decree, the supplier will provide
web-based training to all employees at its Baton Rouge and Harahan, Louisiana
offices on Title VII and defendant's antidiscrimination policies and complaint reporting
procedures. The supplier also will maintain policies and procedures prohibiting
race discrimination and wage disparities based on race, which will include
investigation procedures and contact information for reporting complaints.
Additionally, it will submit annual reports to EEOC on complaints of race
discrimination and harassment it receives at its Baton Rouge and Harahan
offices and their resolution. EEOC v. Corporate Express Office Products, Inc.,
No. 3:09-cv-00516 (M.D. La. Nov. 23, 2009).
In
September 2007, a federal district court in Arizona granted a motion to dismiss
the EEOC's race discrimination case against a northern Arizona hospital. EEOC
had alleged that the hospital, which served parts of the Navaho Nation, paid
its non-White doctors thousands of dollars less than a White American physician
who performed the same work. The non-White physicians represented different
races and national origins, including Asian, Native American, Nigerian, Puerto
Rican, and Pakistani. When they, as well as a former medical director, sought
redress of the wage difference and filed discrimination charges with the EEOC,
EEOC alleged that the hospital retaliated against them with threats of
termination and threats of adverse changes to the terms and conditions of their
employment. EEOC v. Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc., No.
06-CV-2125-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Sept. 7, 2007).
In
August 2009, a Washington Park, Ill., packaging and warehousing company agreed
to pay $57,500 and provide training to settle a race discrimination and
retaliation lawsuit alleging that the company failed to provide a Black
employee the pay raise and health insurance coverage provided to his White
co-workers, and then fired him in retaliation for filing a charge of race
discrimination with the EEOC. EEOC v. Material Resources, LLC, d/b/a Gateway
Co-Packing Co., No. 3:08-245-MJR (S.D. Ill. August 14, 2009).
In
March 2007, EEOC reached a $60,000 settlement in its Title VII lawsuit against Stock
Building Supply d/b/a Stuart Lumber alleging that defendant did not give
Charging Party a salary increase when he was promoted to a managerial position
while White employees who were promoted were given salary increases. EEOC v.
Stock Building Supply f/k/a Carolina Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Stuart Lumber Co.,
Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-306-FTM-29 (M.D. Fla. March 26, 2007).
In
August 2006, the EEOC resolved this Title VII /Equal Pay Act case alleging
that the largest electronic screen-based equity securities market in the United
States failed to promote its only Black female into higher level Research
Analyst positions in its Economic Research Department and paid her less than
White male Research Analysts, on the basis of race and sex. The case settled
for $75,000 and a raise in her annual salary. EEOC v. NASDAQ Stock Market,
Inc., No. 06-1066-RWT (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2006).
In May
2006, Orkin, Inc. paid $75,000 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by
the EEOC, alleging that Orkin refused to reinstate a Black former employee to a
service manager position at the Memphis location and paid him less when he held
the position because of his race. EEOC v. Orkin, Inc., No. 05-2657-Ma/P (W.D. Tenn.
May 26, 2006).
Hostile Work Environment
In
October 2017, Reliable Inc., doing business as Reliable Nissan, agreed to
settle charges of discrimination based on race, national origin, and religion,
along with retaliation. The agreement follows conciliation between the EEOC and
Reliable Nissan over claims that two Reliable Nissan Managers repeatedly used
the "N-word" during a sales meeting, and referred to African,
African-American, Native American, Muslim and Hispanic employees in a
derogatory manner. Employees alleged that managers made offensive jokes about
Muslim and Native American employees' religious practices and traditions, and
used racial epithets like "n----r," "drunken Indians,"
"red." and "redskins." Racially offensive pictures targeted
against minority employees were also posted in the workplace. As part of the
conciliation agreement, Reliable Nissan agreed to pay a total of $205,000 to
three employees who filed discrimination charges with the EEOC and 11 other
minority employees who were subjected to the hostile work environment. The
company also agreed to provide annual training for two years for its employees,
including managers and human resources employees. Additionally, Reliable Nissan
agreed to review its policies and procedures to ensure that employees have a
mechanism for reporting discrimination and to make certain that each complaint
will be appropriately investigated.
In
September 2017, a Hugo, Minnesota construction company paid $125,000 to settle
a racial harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that
JL Schwieters Construction, Inc. violated federal law when it subjected two
Black employees to a hostile work environment, including physical threats,
based on their race. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, two Black carpenters were
subjected to racial harassment during their employment by a White supervisor,
who made racially derogatory comments including calling them
"n----r." The supervisor also made a noose out of electrical wire and
threatened to hang them, the EEOC charged. EEOC v. JL Schwieters Construction,
Inc., Civil Action No. 16-cv-03823 WMW/FLN (D. Minn. Sep. 6, 2017).
In
July 2017, the largest producer of farmed shellfish in the United States, paid
$160,000 and implemented other relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit. According to
the EEOC's suit, a Black maintenance mechanic at the Taylor Shellfish's Samish
Bay Farm faced repeated demeaning comments about his race, including the use of
the "N word," "spook" and "boy." His direct
supervisor commented that his father used to run "your kind" out of
town. When the mechanic reported this behavior to management, the supervisor
retaliated against him and Taylor Shellfish simply advised him to "put his
head down and do what he was told." After being wrongly accused and
disciplined for insubordination, he felt he had no other choice but to quit his
job. Under the consent decree resolving this case, Taylor Shellfish has agreed
to implement new policies, conduct extensive training for employees and
management, post an anti-discrimination notice at the workplace and report
compliance to the EEOC for a three-year period. EEOC v. Taylor Shellfish
Company, Inc., 2:16-CV-01517 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2017 ).
In
July 2016, the Fourth Circuit reversed summary judgment in an employment
discrimination case alleging race, national origin, religion, and pregnancy
discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title
VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in
which the EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff. Plaintiff
Monica Guessous is an Arab-American Muslim woman from Morocco who worked for
Fairview Property Investments, LLC until she was terminated from her position
as a bookkeeping assistant by her supervisor, Greg Washenko, Fairview's Chief
Financial Officer. During her work tenure, Washenko made several derogatory
comments about Morrocans, Muslims and Middle Easterns, often referring to them
as "terrorists" and "crooks." Additionally, he complained
about plaintiff's request for a three-month maternity leave and refused to
transfer back her job duties when she returned to work. By failing to address
numerous comments that were open to a racially motivated interpretation, and by
circumscribing its analysis to just one comment without reviewing the totality
of the circumstances, the district court committed reversible error in its
grant of summary judgment for Fairview on the discrimination and hostile work
environment claims. The Fourth Circuit also decided that discriminatory
discrete acts could support a hostile work environment claim even if it is
separately actionable. Guessous v. Fairview Prop. Invest., No. 15-1055 (4th
Cir. 7/6/2016).
In
January 2015, Carolina Metal Finishing, LLC, a Bishopville, S.C. based metal
finishing company, paid $40,000 and furnished significant remedial relief to
settle a race harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's
complaint, a Black powder coater at the Bishopville plant was repeatedly
subjected to racial slurs by two White employees. The comments included
repeated use of the "N-word." The Black employee allegedly complained
to company management, but the harassment continued. Within hours of his final
complaint, the coater was fired, allegedly in retaliation for his complaints of
racial harassment. In addition to paying $40,000 in monetary relief, the
company must abide by the terms of a two-year consent decree resolving the
case. The consent decree enjoins Carolina Metal from engaging in future racial
discrimination. The decree also requires the company to conduct anti-discrimination
training at its Bishopville facility; post a notice about the settlement at
that facility; implement a formal anti-discriminatory policy prohibiting racial
discrimination; and report certain complaints of conduct that could constitute
discrimination under Title VII to the EEOC for monitoring. EEOC v. Carolina
Metal Finishing, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-03815 (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 2015).
In
December 2014, Swissport Fueling, Inc., which fuels aircraft at Phoenix Sky
Harbor Airport, paid $250,000 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit for
race and national origin harassment filed by the EEOC. The EEOC's lawsuit was
brought to obtain relief for fuelers who were from various African nations,
including Sudan, Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone. The lawsuit alleged that a
Swissport manager routinely called the African fuelers "monkeys" in
various degrading ways. A manager also made demeaning references to slavery to
the fuelers, such as telling them: "You guys are lucky I pay you because
way back then, you did not get paid"; "You are lucky to be paid. A
long time ago Blacks were doing this for free"; "At one time, you
people would not be paid"; and "Blacks work for free." EEOC
alleged that the African fuelers reported the harassment verbally and in
writing, including by signing a written petition and delivering it to the
office of Swissport's general manager at the Phoenix facility to try to stop
the harassment, but the abuse continued. EEOC v. Swissport Fueling, Inc., No.
2:10-cv-02101(GMS) (D. Ariz. Nov. 25, 2014).
In
August 2014, a Thomasville mattress company agreed to pay a combined $42,000 to
two Black former workers to settle an EEOC complaint that alleged they were
unlawfully fired. The complaint alleged that they complained to the company
about racial comments that included the "N-word" made by a White
employee between June and August 2012, but the harassment continued. The
three-year settlement includes the company's agreement to not permit or
maintain a hostile work environment based on race, not to discriminate or
retaliate against any employees because of opposition to any unlawful practice,
a posting of procedures for reporting discrimination and harassment, the
submission of a report to EEOC regarding internal discrimination and harassment
complaints, and the provision of a neutral letter of reference that states one
of the affected employees left employment because he was laid off. EEOC v.
Carolina Mattress Guild Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00706 (M.D.N.C. consent decree
entered Aug. 1, 2014).
In
March 2014, Titan Waste Services, Inc., a Milton, Fla., waste disposal and
recycling company, was ordered to pay $228,603 for violating federal law by
harassing and then firing a truck driver because of his race. According to the
EEOC's suit, Titan's highest-level managers subjected its sole Black driver,
Michael Brooks, to discriminatory treatment during his employment, including
assigning White drivers more favorable routes, requiring Brooks to perform
degrading and unsafe work assignments. Brooks was also subjected to harassment
such as racial slurs and racially derogatory insults, taunting and racial
stereotypes, including the use of the "N-word." According to the
EEOC, shortly before the 2008 presidential election, Titan's facility manager
terminated Brooks without cause after discussing the upcoming election with
him. After Titan's attorney withdrew from the case, the court found Titan did
not continue to assert its defenses and ignored several orders of the court,
displaying a reckless and willful disregard for the judicial proceedings. As a
result, a default judgment was entered by U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers,
based upon evidence submitted by the EEOC and Titan was ordered to pay lost
wages and other damages suffered by Brooks. EEOC v. Titan Waste Services, Inc.,
No. 3:10-cv-00379 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2014).
In
March 2014, Olympia Construction, Inc. paid $100,000 jointly to three former
employees to resolve a race harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the
EEOC. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that Olympia subjected Adrian Soles, Anthony
Moorer and George McWilliams to racial slurs and intimidation. The agency also
said that Olympia terminated the victims because they complained to the EEOC.
EEOC v. Olympia Constr., No. 2:13-cv-155 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 27, 2014).
In
June 2013, a national food distributor paid $15,000 in compensatory damages to
three former employees to resolve an EEOC race discrimination lawsuit alleging
that its Mason City warehouse failed for months to remove racist graffiti in a men's
restroom that included a swastika and references to the Ku Klux Klan, despite
complaints from an African-American employee. Specifically, an African-American
employee complained to management that he had seen graffiti reading
"N*****s STINK" in a men's restroom. The EEOC alleged that the
distributor's supervisors, including the Black employee's supervisor, used that
restroom, yet the racist message remained for 30 days after he complained. The
EEOC's suit also alleged that, about a week after the distributor finally
removed the graffiti, a second message appeared, this time stating "KKK I
hate N*****s." The EEOC alleged that this second message remained visible
for over three months after the employee alerted the EEOC to the situation. In
addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree requires the company will
repaint the restrooms and train employees on race discrimination within 45
days. EEOC v. MBM Corp., No. 3:12-cv-3069(LTS) (N.D. Iowa consent decree
granted June 24, 2013).
In May
2013, a Tyler, Texas-based petroleum and gas industry equipment provider paid
$150,000 and furnished other relief to settle an EEOC racial harassment and
retaliation suit. According to the EEOC's suit, an African-American employee of
Torqued-Up assigned to a field crew in South Texas experienced racial
harassment in the form of racial slurs and epithets from two employees who
supervised him on the job. According to the EEOC, the employee, who had 30
years of experience in the oil industry, reported the racial harassment to
Torqued-Up's management, but instead of putting a stop to it, the company
unlawfully retaliated against him. The punishment included removing the man
from his crew and assigning him to perform menial tasks such as washing trucks
and sweeping, rather than the oil field work that he had been hired to perform,
and reducing his work hours, thereby reducing his income. EEOC v. Torqued-Up
Energy Services, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00051 (S.D. Tex. May 28, 2013).
In
April 2013, a Utah construction company paid three former employees $230,000
and improved its future employment practices to settle an EEOC race harassment
and retaliation lawsuit. The EEOC filed suit against the company in September
2010, charging that the company subjected Antonio and Joby Bratcher and a class
of African-American employees to racial harassment and retaliation. In a ruling
last year, Judge Dale A. Kimball found that the Bratchers and class member
James Buie were subjected to an objectively hostile work environment based on
race. The court observed that the site superintendent, Paul E. Facer, referred
to the African-American employees as "n----rs" or a variation of that
word almost every time he spoke to them. Other Holmes employees used the term
"n----r-rigging" while working there, and racist graffiti was evident
both inside and outside portable toilets on the work site. In addition to the
monetary relief, Holmes also committed to implement several affirmative steps
to prevent and address race-based conduct on the worksite. These measures
include: a comprehensive training regimen on discrimination (including racial
discrimination and harassment); discussions of harassment in work site meetings
on a monthly basis; the provision of an external ombudsman to receive and
investigate complaints of discrimination or retaliation; and a detailed review
and revision of Holmes' policies and procedures concerning protected-class
discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v. Holmes & Holmes Industrial, Inc.,
No. 2:10-CV-955 (D. Utah consent decree filed Apr. 12, 2013).
In
March 2013, EEOC and Day & Zimmerman NPS, a leading supplier of
maintenance, labor, and construction services to the power industry, filed a
consent decree resolving EEOC's claims that Day & Zimmerman violated
federal law by creating a hostile work environment for an African-American
laborer for $190,000. In the lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Day & Zimmerman,
through its foreman at the Poletti Power Plant in Astoria, Queens, N.Y., had
subjected Carlos Hughes to physical and verbal racial harassment that included
racial insults and derogatory stories referring to African Americans as stupid
and incompetent, as well as frequently tripping Hughes, and once kicking him in
the buttocks. The foreman also told racist jokes in the workplace, and made
negative comments about African Americans; including that Sean Bell (shot by
the police at a nightclub) deserved to be shot, and threatened that candidate
Barack Obama would be shot before the country allowed a Black president. EEOC
alleged that Hughes complained to management many times for more than a year
regarding the harassment, and that when Day & Zimmerman finally arranged a
meeting in response, it disciplined Hughes less than an hour later, and then
fired him that same day, citing a false safety violation as a reason. EEOC v.
Day & Zimmerman NPS, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-04741 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree filed
Mar. 12, 2013).
The
Commission alleged that Whirlpool violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 when it did nothing to stop a White male co-worker at a Whirlpool plant in
LaVergne, Tenn., from harassing an African-American female employee because of
her race and sex. The abuse lasted for two months and escalated when the
co-worker physically assaulted the Black employee and inflicted serious
permanent injuries. During a four-day bench trial, the court heard evidence
that the employee repeatedly reported offensive verbal conduct and gestures by
the co-worker to Whirlpool management before she was violently assaulted,
without any corrective action by the company. The trial also established that
the employee suffered devastating permanent mental injuries that will prevent
her from working again as a result of the assault. At the conclusion of the
bench trial, the judge entered a final judgment and awarded the employee a
total of $1,073,261 in back pay, front pay and compensatory damages on December
21, 2009. Whirlpool filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment on January
15, 2010 which the district court denied on March 31, 2011. On April 26, 2011,
Whirlpool appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. The company withdrew its appeal on June 11, 2012 and agreed settle the
case with the EEOC and plaintiff intervener for $1 million and court costs. The
plant where the discrimination occurred had closed during the litigation
period. EEOC v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 11-5508 (6th Cir. June 12, 2012) (granting
joint motion to dismiss).
Ready
Mix paid a total of $400,000 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among
the seven class members to settle an EEOC lawsuit. The Commission had alleged
Ready Mix USA LLC, doing business as Couch Ready Mix USA LLC, subjected a class
of African American males at Ready Mix's Montgomery-area facilities to a
racially hostile work environment. A noose was displayed in the worksite,
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. 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. EEOC v. Ready Mix USA LLC, No. 2:09-cv-00923 (M.D. Ala.
Feb. 3, 2012).
In
January 2013, a federal jury found that two Black employees of a North Carolina
trucking company were subjected to a racially hostile work environment and
awarded them $200,000 in damages. The jury also found that one employee was
fired in retaliation for complaining about the hostile environment. In a
complaint filed in June 2011, EEOC alleged that, from at least May 2007 through
June 2008, one Black employee was subjected to derogatory and threatening
comments based on his race by his supervisor and co-workers, and that a
coworker mechanic displayed a noose and asked him if he wanted to "hang
from our family tree." EEOC also alleged that the mechanic also repeatedly
and regularly called the employee "nigger" and "Tyrone," a
term the co-worker used to refer to unknown black individuals. Evidence also
revealed that A.C. Widenhouse's general manager and the employee's supervisor
also regularly made racial comments and used racial slurs, such as asking him
if he would be the coon in a "coon hunt" and alerting him that if one
of his daughters brought home a Black man, he would kill them both. The
employee also frequently heard other co-workers use racial slurs such as
"nigger" and "monkey" over the radio when communicating
with each other. The second Black employee testified that, when he was hired in
2005, he was the company's only African American and was told he was the
"token black." The general manager also talked about a noose and
having "friends" visit in the middle of the night as threats to
Floyd. Both employees reported the racial harassment, but company supervisors
and officers failed to address the hostile work environment. The jury awarded
the former employees $50,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 each in
punitive damages. EEOC v. A.C. Widenhouse Inc., No. 1:11-cv-498 (M.D.N.C.
verdict filed Jan. 28, 2013).
In
January 2013, Emmert International agreed to settle an employment
discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC that charged the company harassed and
retaliated against employees in violation of federal law. Specifically, the
EEOC's lawsuit alleged that the company's foreman and other Emmert employees
repeatedly harassed two employees, one African American and the other
Caucasian, while working on the Odd Fellows Hall project in Salt Lake City.
Emmert's foreman and employees regularly used the "n-word," called
the Black employee "boy," called the White employee a "n----
lover," and made racial jokes and comments. The EEOC also alleged that
Emmert International retaliated against Black employee for complaining about
the harassment. The 24- month consent decree requires the company to pay
$180,000 to the two employees, provide training to its staff on unlawful
employment discrimination, and to review and revise its policies on workplace
discrimination. The decree also requires Emmert International to post notices
explaining federal laws against workplace discrimination. EEOC v. Emmert
Industrial Corp., d/b/a Emmert International, No. 2:11-CV-00920CW (D. Ariz.
Jan. 7, 2013).
In
October 2012, a district court ruled that the EEOC proved that a construction
site where a White supervisor regularly used racial slurs was objectively a
hostile work environment for Black employees under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
It also decided, however, that a jury must determine if the three Black
plaintiffs found the workplace subjectively offensive because, although their
repeated complaints indicate they were offended, a jury must resolve factual
issues raised by some co-workers' testimony that the plaintiffs actually did
not seem bothered by the harasser's conduct. Ruling on EEOC's motion for
partial summary judgment, the court said the company's admissions that site
superintendent/project manager referred to three Black plaintiff-intervenors as
"nigger" or "nigga" on a near-daily basis and told racial
jokes using those terms and other offensive epithets establishes an objective
racially hostile work environment. The court said the undisputed evidence also
indicated that human resources manager told the company's employees during a
safety meeting not to "nigger rig their jobs"; that company
management was aware the worksite's portable toilets were covered with racist
graffiti; and that other White supervisors and employees routinely used racial
epithets, including an incident where a White supervisor commented regarding
rap music being played in a van transporting employees to the worksite,
"I'm not listening to this nigger jig." When confronted by a Black
employee about the comment, the White supervisor allegedly replied: "I can
see where your feelings were hurt, but there is a difference between niggers
and blacks, Mexicans and spics. But I see you as a black man." EEOC v.
Holmes & Holmes Indus. Inc., No. 10-955 (D. Utah Oct. 10, 2012).
In
March 2012, the EEOC sued a restaurant in Menomonie, Wisconsin because its
managers allegedly posted images of a noose, a Klan hood and other racist
depictions, including a dollar bill that was defaced with a noose around the
neck of a Black-faced George Washington, swastikas, and the image of a man in a
Ku Klux Klan hood. A Black employee to complained and then was fired. EEOC v.
Northern Star Hospitality Inc., Civil Action No. 12-cv-214 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 27,
2012).
In
February 2012, major cement and concrete products company, paid $400,000 and
furnished other relief to settle am EEOC lawsuit alleging racial harassment.
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. The two-year
decree also 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. EEOC v. Ready Mix USA d/b/a Couch Ready Mix USA LLC, No.
2:09-CV-923 (M.D. Ala. consent decree announced Feb. 21, 2012).
In
August 2011, a federal district court entered a default judgment in favor of
the EEOC in its lawsuit alleging that a pipeline construction company permitted
several African American employees to be subjected to hanging nooses in the
workplace even after they complained about the offensive displays. The company
failed to retain counsel to prosecute the lawsuit. The court granted the EEOC's
motion for a default judgment and awarded $50,000 to five claimants. The court
also enjoined the company from discriminating on the basis of race or protected
conduct in violation of Title VII . EEOC v. L.A. Pipeline Constr. Co., No.
2:08-CV-840 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 5, 2011).
In
June 2011, Herzog Roofing, Inc., a Detroit Lakes, Minn., roofing company,
agreed in a pre-suit settlement to pay $71,500 to seven Black, Hispanic, and American
Indian employees to settle racial harassment and retaliation charges, alleging
that the targeted employees were frequently subjected to racial epithets,
racial jokes and hostile treatment by managers and coworkers and that
complaints were ignored. The EEOC also had found that the company retaliated
against the employee who brought the initial complaint by firing him after he
reported the unlawful treatment. In addition to monetary relief, the company
has agreed to provide anti-discrimination training to all of its employees and
additional training on harassment and retaliation to all supervisors, managers
and owners. It also will redistribute its anti-harassment policies and
procedures and monitor its supervisors' compliance with equal employment opportunity
laws.
In May
2011, an IT service company entered a consent decree to pay $60,000 to an
African-American employee who had allegedly been subjected to race
discrimination and retaliation. In its lawsuit, the EEOC had alleged that the
employee's supervisors subjected him to racial epithets and asked if he was a
"black man or a n----r." The Commission further alleged that,
following his complaints of racial discrimination, the company demoted and
later discharged the employee. The consent decree enjoins the company from
engaging in any racial discrimination or retaliation and requires the company
to post a remedial notice for two years. In addition, the company must draft
its non-discrimination, anti-harassment, and retaliation policies in simple,
plain language and include a complaint procedure within these policies. The
consent decree also bolsters supervisor accountability and requires training on
the requirements of Title VII for all managers, supervisors, and Human
Resources personnel. Finally, the company must keep records of each future
complaint related to race, national origin, or retaliation and furnish written
reports to the EEOC regarding any potential complaints.EEOC v. Eclipse
Advantage, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-02001 (N.D. Ohio consent decree filed May 2,
2011).
In
April 2011, an architectural sheet metal company settled a racial harassment
case for $160,000 in which the EEOC alleged that a White supervisor regularly
referred to African-American employees with the epithet "n----r" and
used other slurs and racial graffiti was on display in common areas and on
company equipment. In addition to monetary relief, the 18-month consent decree
settling the lawsuit provides for training on employee rights under Title VII , and requires the company to
maintain records of racial harassment complaints, provide annual reports to the
EEOC, and post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that includes the EEOC's
contact information.EEOC v. Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-02636
(W.D. Tenn. settled Apr. 22, 2011).
In
April 2011, the Fourth Circuit vacated in part the district court's judgment
and remanded for trial part of the EEOC's racial harassment suit against
Xerxes, a fiberglass company. EEOC had alleged that the company's Hagerstown, MD
plant permitted its Black employees to be subjected to a racially hostile work
environment despite repeated complaints about the harassment. The alleged
harassment included name-calling such as "black Polack,"
"Buckwheat," and "boy;" White coworkers' frequent use of
the N-word; and the discovery of a note in a Black employee's locker that said:
"KKK plans could result in death, serious personal injury, Nigga
Bernard." The district court dismissed the EEOC's case, ruling that Xerxes
had "acted quickly and reasonably effectively to end" the harassment.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit decided that a reasonable jury could find that
the complaints by two claimants prior to February 2006 "were sufficient to
place Xerxes on actual notice of racial slurs and pranks in the plant and that
Xerxes' response was unreasonable." The court affirmed the rest of the
district court's judgment.EEOC v. Xerxes Corp., No. 10-1156 (4th Cir. Apr. 26,
2011).
In
October 2010, a South Point, Ohio-based contractor that constructs and installs
water and sewer lines entered into a 5-year consent decree to settle claims
that it violated Title VII when it failed to stop a White foreman and employees from racially
harassing and retaliating against a Black laborer working at defendant's sewer
installation site in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. The alleged
harassment included directing threatening language and conduct at the Black
laborer, such as saying that President Obama would be assassinated and showing
him a swastika a White coworker had spray-painted on company equipment. The
contractor fired the Black laborer allegedly because he refused to drop his
complaint after the superintendent told him that he could not guarantee the
laborer's safety and that he could not return to work while he continued to
press his complaint. The consent decree awards the laborer $87,205 in monetary
relief, $47,205 as backpay and $40,000 as punitive damages (paid in four
quarterly $10,000 installments), all personally guaranteed by the owner, as well
as a written offer of reinstatement. The decree also permanently enjoins race
discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation, and requires the contractor
to implement antidiscrimination policies, complaint procedures with multiple
avenues for complaining about discrimination, harassment, and retaliation,
guidelines for prompt and thorough investigation of each such complaint or
report (whether verbal or written), procedures for compiling and maintaining an
investigative file, and EEO training for all managers, supervisors, and other
employees. EEOC v. Mike Enyart & Sons, No. 5:10-cv-00921 (S.D.W.Va. settled
Oct. 6, 2010).
In
September 2010, EEOC sued the largest private university in the United States
and one of New York City's ten biggest employers for allegedly violating
federal law by creating a hostile work environment for an African-born employee
that included degrading verbal harassment based on national origin and race.
According to the EEOC's suit, the supervisor of the mailroom in NYU's Elmer
Holmes Bobst Library regularly subjected his assistant, who is a native of
Ghana, to slurs such as "monkey" and "gorilla," and made
comments such as "go back to your cage," "go back to the
jungle," and "do you want a banana?" The supervisor also
frequently mocked the assistant's accented English, deriding it as
"gibberish," and expressed hostility toward immigrants generally and
Africans specifically. Although the assistant complained repeatedly to NYU
management and human resources personnel, NYU took months to investigate and
then took virtually no action to curb the supervisor's conduct. Even after the
assistant alerted NYU that the supervisor had retaliated against him for
complaining, such as by fabricating grounds for disciplining him, the university
did not stop the harassment. EEOC v. New York Univ., No. 10-CV-7399 (S.D.N.Y.
filed Sept. 27, 2010).
In
September 2010, the largest uniform manufacturer in North America and provider
of specialized services agreed to pay $152,500 to settle a racial harassment
claim. A class of African-American employees was subjected to racial harassment
by co-workers when workers in a specific division were referred to as the
"ghetto division," and were called derivations of
"chocolate" or "chocolate delicious," conduct that went
uncorrected. In addition to monetary relief, a consent decree enjoins the
company from engaging in either sexual or racial harassment or retaliation.
Furthermore, the company must conduct training on federal anti-discrimination
laws, report on company responses to complaints, and post a remedial
notice.EEOC v. Cintas Corp., No. 1:09-cv-04449 (E.D. Pa. settled Sept. 27,
2010).
In
September 2010, EEOC filed a racial harassment lawsuit against a cell phone
installation and testing company, asserting that the company violated federal
anti-discrimination laws when it subjected an African-American employee to
severe and repeated harassment. According to the complaint, a foreman regularly
subjected the employee to racially driven comments, gestures, and threats,
including calling him "boy," telling him that that "whites run
things," and threatening to physically harm the employee. Furthermore, the
foreman, who wore a swastika on his arm, stated that he had "cut an
African from the belly to the neck" and that he "likes killing blacks
and Mexicans." The foreman also said about Black people, "just hang
them and burn a cross on the homes." The harassment continued even after
the employee reported the conduct. Because the employee feared for his safety,
he resigned. EEOC v. Towersite Services, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-02997 (N.D. Ga. Sept.
20, 2010).
In August
2010, an aircraft services company settled for $600,000 the EEOC's suit
claiming the company permitted the unlawful harassment of Black, Filipino, and
Guatemalan employees at a Burbank, California airport. Under a two-year consent
decree, Mercury Air Centers Inc. agreed to pay the settlement amount to at
least seven employees who were allegedly subjected to "a barrage of
harassing comments" by a Salvadoran co-worker at Bob Hope Airport. Rather
than respond to the employees' complaints about the alleged harasser, the
company promoted the alleged harasser to supervisor, the Commission alleged.
EEOC v. Mercury Air Centers Inc., No. 08-6332 (C.D. Cal. consent decree filed
Aug. 9, 2010).
In
April 2010, a Houston-area construction company paid $122,500 and will provide
additional remedial relief to resolve a federal lawsuit alleging race, national
origin and religious discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that the
company discriminated against Mohammad Kaleemuddin because he is of the Islamic
faith and of East Indian descent, and against 13 other employees because they
are Black or Hispanic when a supervisor referred to Kaleemuddin as
"terrorist," "Taliban," "Osama" and
"Al-Qaeda," to the Black employees as "n----s" and to
Hispanics as "f-----g Mexicans." In addition to monetary relief, the
consent decree required the owner to provide a signed letter of apology to
Kaleemuddin and that the alleged harassing manager alleged be prohibited from
ever working again for the company. The company will also provide employee
training designed to prevent future discrimination and harassment on the job.
EEOC v. Pace Services, L.P., No. 4:08cv2886 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2010).
In
April 2010, the EEOC settled its lawsuit against Professional Building Systems
for $118,000 and significant non-monetary relief after it had identified at
least 12 Black employees who had been subjected to racial harassment there.
According to the EEOC's complaint, at various times between mid-2005 and 2008,
Black employees were subjected to racial harassment that involved the creation
and display of nooses; references to Black employees as "boy" and by
the "N-word"; and racially offensive pictures such as a picture that
depicted the Ku Klux Klan looking down a well at a Black man. In its complaint,
the EEOC alleged that the managers of the company not only knew about the
harassment and took no action to stop or prevent it, but also that a manager
was one of the perpetrators of the harassment. EEOC v. Professional Building
Systems of North Carolina, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00617) (M.D.N.C. April
2010).
In
February 2010, Big Lots paid $400,000 to settle a race harassment and
discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC alleged that the company took no
corrective action to stop an immediate supervisor and co-workers, all Hispanic,
from subjecting a Black maintenance mechanic and other Black employees to
racially derogatory jokes, comments, slurs and epithets, including the use of
the words "n----r" and "monkey," at its California
distribution center. EEOC v. Big Lots, Inc., CV-08-06355-GW(CTx) (C.D. Cal.
Feb. 2010).
In
January 2010, the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a
district court's decision granting summary judgment to defendant Whirlpool
Corporation in a racial hostile work environment case in which the EEOC
participated as amicus curiae. The alleged racial harassment largely involved a
serial harasser who continually used racial slurs, including various
permutations on "nigger," made references to the Ku Klux Klan openly
and on a daily basis, and left a threatening message on a coworker's husband's
answering machine. Other racially hostile incidents included White coworkers
displaying the Confederate flag on their clothing and tow motors, threatening
racial violence, making repeated references to the KKK and the n-word, telling
of racist jokes, remarking that they wished they had a "James Earl Ray
Day" as a holiday, and "laughing and talking about the Black guy that
got drugged [sic] behind a truck in Texas[,] … saying he probably deserved
it." Several of the Black plaintiffs also testified about the presence of
racial graffiti in the plant bearing similar messages, including "KKK
everywhere," "go home sand niggers," and "Jesus suffered,
so the niggers must suffer too, or … Blacks must suffer, too." Armstrong
v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 08-6376 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2010).
In
January 2010, a Georgia car dealership agreed to pay $140,000 to settle a race
discrimination suit. In this case, the EEOC alleged that a White consultant
visited the car dealership three to four times a week and never missed an
opportunity to make racially derogatory comments towards the Black sales
manager and almost always in the presence of other people. After the Black
sales manager complained about the derogatory comments, two White managers
asked the consultant to stop his discriminatory behavior. The consultant
ignored their requests to cease and continued to make the derogatory comments
at every opportunity. The dealership denied any liability or wrongdoing but
will provide equal employment opportunity training, make reports, and post
anti-discrimination notices. EEOC v. S&H Thomson, Inc., dba Stokes-Hodges
Chevrolet Cadillac Buick Pontiac GMC, (S.D. Ga. Consent decree filed Jan. 14,
2010).
In September 2009, a Phoenix credit card
processing company agreed to pay $415,000 and furnish significant remedial
relief to settle a race harassment lawsuit, in which the EEOC charged that the
company subjected a group of African American workers to racial slurs and
epithets. According to one discrimination victim: "My supervisors often
referred to my fellow African-American employees and me as 'n-----rs' and
'porch monkeys' and forced us to play so-called 'Civil War games' where
employees were divided into North and South. They also referred to Black
children or mixed-race children as 'porch monkeys' or 'Oreo babies.' On several
occasions, I was told to turn off my 'jigaboo music." EEOC v. NPMG,
Acquisition Sub, LLC., No. CV 08-01790-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. Sep. 16, 2009).
In
August 2009, a Mississippi-based drilling company agreed to pay $50,000 to
settle a Title VII lawsuit, alleging that four employees, three White and one Black,
experienced racial harassment and retaliation while assigned to a remote
drilling rig in Texas. The harassment included being subjected to racial taunts
and mistreatment from Hispanic employees and supervisors and having their
safety threatened because the supervisors conducted safety meetings in Spanish
only and refused to interpret for them in English. Told that they needed to
learn Spanish because they were in South Texas, the employees said that instead
of addressing their complaints of discrimination, they were fired. The company
agreed to establish an effective anti-discrimination policy and to provide
anti-discrimination training to its employees. EEOC v. E&D Services, Inc.,
No. SA-08-CA-0714-NSN (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2009).
In May
2009, a masonry company agreed to pay $500,000 to settle a Title VII lawsuit alleging race and
national origin harassment of Hispanic employees. The suit charged that the
foremen and former superintendent referred to the company's Latino employees
with derogatory terms such as "f---ing Mexicans," "pork
chop," "Julio," "spics," "chico" and
"wetback." In addition, former employees alleged that Hispanic
workers were routinely exposed to racist graffiti, which the company never
addressed. The three-year decree enjoins the company from future discrimination
and retaliation on the basis of race or national origin and mandates
anti-discrimination and investigation training for all of its employees and
supervisors. EEOC v. Ceisel Masonry, No. 06 C 2075 (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2009);
Ramirez v. Ceisel Masonry, No. 06 C 2084 (N.D. Ill. May 2009).
In
April 2009, high-end retailer Nordstrom settled an EEOC lawsuit alleging that
it permitted the harassment despite complaints by Hispanic and Black employees
about a department manager who said she "hated Hispanics" and that
they were "lazy" and "ignorant" and that she didn't like
Blacks and told one employee, "You're Black, you stink." Under the
terms of the settlement, Nordstrom will pay $292,000, distribute copies of its
anti-discrimination policy to its employees, and provide anti-harassment
training. EEOC v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. 07-80894-CIV-RYSKAMP/VITUNAC (S.D. Fla.
April 2009).
In
July 2008, the largest independent tire companies in the nation agreed to pay
$185,000 and furnish other corrective measures to settle a racial harassment
lawsuit. In the lawsuit, EEOC alleged that the company subjected a Native
American employee to continuous race-based harassment, which included
co-workers calling him derogatory names and making insulting jokes about Native
Americans over a period of years and then fired him when he continued to
complain about the mistreatment. EEOC v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana,
Inc., No. 06-149-M-DWM (D. Mont. July 1, 2008).
In
June 2008, a San Jose-based manufacturer of semiconductor production equipment
agreed to pay $168,000 to settle EEOC claims that it failed to stop the racial
harassment of an African American assembly technician who was forced to listen
to a Vietnamese coworker play and rap aloud to rap music with racially
offensive lyrics and then fired the Black employee after he repeatedly
complained about his work conditions. The manufacturer also agreed to amend its
harassment policy to refer specifically to harassment through the playing of
music, and to include offensive musical lyrics in its examples of racial harassment.
EEOC v. Novellus Systems, Inc., C-07-4787 RS (N.D. Cal. settled June 24, 2008).
In
June 2008, a landmark New York City restaurant in Central Park settled an EEOC
Title VII lawsuit filed on behalf of
female, Hispanic, and Black employees for $2.2 million. EEOC had alleged that
for the past eight years the restaurant engaged in racial and sexual
harassment. The alleged harassment included a manager's regular use of the
"n-word" to refer to the Black employees and "sp*c" or "ignorant
immigrants" to refer to the Hispanic employees. Additionally, the manager
asked a Black hostess to "touch and suck his penis" and
inappropriately grabbed her buttocks and breasts. the restaurant. Pursuant to
the settlement agreement, the restaurant will establish a telephone hotline
which employees may use to raise any discrimination complaints, distribute a
revised policy against discrimination and retaliation, and provide training to
all employees against discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v. Tavern on the
Green, Civil Action No. 07- CV-8256 (S.D.N.Y. settled June 2, 2008).
In May
2008, the Sixth Circuit ruled that two Black male dockworkers had been
subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII . The harassment in this case,
in which the EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of the victims, centered on
the frequent use of the term "boy" to refer to the Black male
employees. The term was spray-painted on walls and doors, written in Black
marker or spray painted in the locker rooms, equipment, and on a calendar in
the break room over Martin Luther King's birthday, etched into bathroom walls
in the terminal, and written in dust on dock surfaces, even after the employer
held a sensitivity session to explain the term's racial and derogatory
implications. Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc., 526 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2008).
In
April 2008, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's
decision granting summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff's Title VII claim alleging that he was
subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The racial hostility
manifested as racist graffiti, racial epithets, and the hanging of a noose at a
Salt Lake City rail yard. Agreeing with the position taken by the EEOC as
amicus curiae, the court of appeals held that nearly all of the racially hostile
acts alleged by the plaintiff could be considered as a single hostile work
environment under National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101
(2002), and that the plaintiff could obtain relief for the entire period of the
hostile work environment at issue notwithstanding the fact that he failed to
file suit after receiving a notice of right to sue on an earlier Title VII
charge challenging the racial harassment. Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp., 520
F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. Apr. 1, 2008).
In
March 2008, the Commission affirmed the AJ's finding of race (Native American)
and national origin (Cherokee Nation) discrimination, where complainant had his
life threatened by a client and the agency never took necessary actions to stop
the harassment. The AJ found that a customer continually harassed complainant
by, among other actions, referring to complainant as a "worthless Indian,
dumb Indian, and stupid." The Commission affirmed the award of $50,000 in
non-pecuniary damages due to complainant's emotional suffering, restoration of
leave, payment of costs, and mileage. The Commission also ordered training of
responsible officials, consideration of discipline, and the posting of a notice
but rejected the AJ's award of $6,903.87 in closing costs for complainant's
sale of his house as being too speculative to connect to the discriminatory
conduct.Hern v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060012 (March
10, 2008).
In
January 2008, a Lockheed Martin facility in Hawaii settled a Title VII lawsuit for $2.5 million, the
largest amount ever obtained by the EEOC for a single person in a race
discrimination case. The EEOC asserted that the military contractor engaged in
racial harassment and retaliation after it allegedly permitted a Latino
supervisor and White co-workers to subject an African American electrician to
racial jokes, slurs and threats daily for a year. Additionally, the employees
allegedly told the Black electrician it would have been better if the South had
won the Civil War and talked regularly about lynching and slavery. After the
electrician complained about the harassment, he was terminated. In addition to
the monetary settlement, the company agreed to terminate the harassers and make
significant policy changes to address any future discrimination. EEOC v.
Lockheed Martin, Civil No. 05-00479 SPK (D. Haw. settled Jan. 2, 2008).
In
October 2007, EEOC obtained $290,000 from an Oklahoma-based oil drilling
contractor for seven African American men who alleged that, while on an oil
rig, they were subjected to a hostile work environment, which included the
display of hangman nooses, derogatory racial language, and race-based name
calling. EEOC v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co., No. 3:05-cv-691 (D.
Miss. 2007).
In
October 2007, the Commission decided that a federal agency had improperly
dismissed a Black employee's racial harassment complaint for failure to state a
claim. The employee had alleged she was subjected to a hostile work environment
because the agency had rehired a former employee who had been charged with
discrimination after he made a noose and hung it up in the proximity of an
African American employee. The Commission decided that the employee's
allegations, if true, were sufficiently severe to state a hostile work environment
claim in violation of Title VII since an employer is responsible for preventing
discriminatory work environments when it is aware of such danger. The case was
reinstated and remanded to the agency for an investigation. Juergensen v. Dep't
of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 0120073331 (Oct. 5, 2007).
In
April 2007, the Commission decided that a Caucasian complainant, was subjected
to racial harassment over a period of two years by both managers and co-workers
used various racially derogatory terms when referring to complainant. Evidence
showed that management generally condoned racially related comments made by
African-American supervisors and co-workers who frequently voiced a "Black
versus White" mentality at the work place. The Commission ordered the agency
to pay complainant $10,000.00 in compensatory damages and to provide training
to all management and staff at the facility. See Brown v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060042 (April 11, 2007).
In
April 2007, EEOC reached a $900,000 settlement in a lawsuit alleging that a
geriatric center subjected 29 Black, Haitian and Jamaican employees to
harassing comments because of race and national origin. The employees were also
prohibited from speaking Creole, and were retaliated against by being subjected
to discipline when they complained about their treatment. EEOC v. Flushing
Manor Geriatric Center, Inc. d/b/a William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion,
No. 05-4061 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2007).
In
January 2007, EEOC settled a racial harassment lawsuit against AK Steel
Corporation, a Fortune 500 company, for $600,000. The evidence in that case was
both severe and pervasive because the workplace featured Nazi symbols, racially
graphic and threatening graffiti with messages to kill Black people, displays
of nooses and swastikas in work areas open to Black employees, racial slurs and
epithets, an open display of KKK videos in the employee lounge areas and
circulation of political literature by David Duke, a known KKK leader. EEOC v.
AK Steel Corp., (Jan. 31, 2007).
In
November 2006, the EEOC resolved a Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, a nationwide
meat processing company, discriminated against Black maintenance department
employees at its chicken processing plant in Ashland, Alabama, by subjecting
them to a racially hostile work environment, which included a "Whites
Only" sign on a bathroom in the maintenance department and a padlock on
the bathroom door to which only White employees were given keys. The complaint
also alleged that the two Charging Parties were retaliated against when they
were suspended for minor issues within a few months of complaining about racial
conditions at the plant. Thirteen Black employees intervened in the Commission
action alleging violations of Title VII , 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and various state law
provisions. Pursuant to a 3-year consent decree, 13 complainants would receive
$871,000 and attorney's fees and costs. EEOC v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
cv-05-BE-1704-E (N.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 2006).
In
July 2006, Home Depot paid $125,000 to settle a race discrimination and
retaliation lawsuit. The suit alleged that a Black former night crew
lumberman/forklift operator was subjected to a racially hostile work
environment because management condoned racial remarks by his supervisors who
called him "Black dog," "Black boy," a "worthless
[racial epithet]" and told him that the Supreme Court had found Black
people to be "inferior." EEOC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 05-11921
(D. Mass. July 13, 2006).
In
March 2006, a commercial coating company agreed to pay $1 million to settle an
EEOC case that alleged that a Black employee was subjected to racially hostile
environment that included frequent verbal and physical abuse that culminated in
him being choked by a noose in the company bathroom until he lost
consciousness. EEOC v. Commercial Coating Serv., Inc., No. H-03-3984 (S.D. Tex.
Mar. 2006).
In
February 2006, the Commission affirmed an AJ's finding that complainant had
been subjected to hostile work environment discrimination based on race
(African-American) when a noose was placed in his work area. Although based on
a single incident, the noose was a sufficiently severe racial symbol with
violent implications that equates to a death threat. As such, the incident
altered the condition of complainant's employment. Complainant was awarded
$35,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, restoration of annual and
sick leave, and $34,505.87 in attorney's fees. The agency was ordered to
provide racial harassment training to all employees at the activity. Tootle v.
Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40127 (Feb. 10, 2006).
In
March 2005, the Commission found that a federal employee's supervisor subjected
him to hostile work environment harassment when he used a historically-offensive
racist slur (n-word) in the employee's presence and at least once in reference
to him; treated him less favorably than he did White employees; verbally abused
him; and subjected him to hazardous working conditions because of complainant's
race (African-American). EEOC also found that the supervisor violated the
anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII when, standing behind the federal employee, he
informed all employees that if they wanted to file an EEO complaint, they had
to discuss it with him first. EEOC ordered the agency to determine
complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages; train the supervisor with
regard to his obligations to eliminate discrimination in the federal workplace;
and consider taking disciplinary action against the supervisor. Whidbee v.
Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01A40193 (March 31, 2005).
In
November 2004, in a case against an upstate New York a computer parts
manufacturer, EEOC alleged that Native American employees were subjected to
frequent name-calling, war whoops, and other derogatory statements (comments
about being "on the warpath" and about scalpings, alcohol abuse, and
living in tepees). The employees complained to several supervisors and the
Human Resources Department, and the offending employees were occasionally
warned, but the hostile environment continued. A consent decree required the
company to pay $200,000 to the victims and enjoined future discrimination; to
actively recruit Native Americans for available positions; to implement and
publish a policy and procedure for addressing harassment and retaliation that
includes an effective complaint procedure, and to report to EEOC on complaints
of retaliation and harassment based on Native American heritage. EEOC v.
Dielectric Labs, Inc. (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2007), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/05annrpt/index.html#IID2.
In
November 2004, the Commission decided that, although racially charged comments
were only made on one day, the nature of the comments, which included several
racial slurs, was sufficiently severe to render work environment hostile.
Nicholas v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01A43603 (November 4,
2004).
In
September 2004, the Commission affirmed an AJ's finding that a Caucasian
registered nurse had been subjected to racial harassment and constructive
discharge. The AJ found that for approximately two and one-half years Black
Health Technicians refused to comply with her orders while following the orders
of African American nurses; that one Health Technician told complainant that
she would not take orders from a White nurse; and that Technicians screamed,
banged on doors, blocked complainant's exit when complainant asked for
assistance. The AJ found that the harassment ultimately led to proposed
disciplinary action and complainant's constructive discharge. The agency was
ordered to reinstate complainant to a Registered Nurse position in a different
work area, with back pay and benefits, pay complainant $10,000 in compensatory
damages, and provide training to her former unit. Menard v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40004 (September 29, 2004), request for
reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05A50175 (January 18, 2005); http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/05a50175.txt.
Retaliation
In
June 2016, DHD Ventures Management Company Inc. will pay a total of $40,000 to
settle allegations of racial harassment and retaliation. The EEOC charged that
the company, a New York-based real estate management company, allowed Charles
Lesine and Marlin Ware to be harassed from late 2007 to November 2011 at
Grandeagle Apartments, a residential complex in Greenville, South Carolina,
that DHD managed. According to the lawsuit, Lesine and Ware allegedly were
subjected to unwelcome derogatory racial comments and slurs made by a White
coworker, including the repeated use of the "n" word. The two
employees complained to management but the harassment allegedly continued. EEOC
v. DHD Ventures Mgmt. Co., Case No. 6:15-cv-00102-TMC-KFM (D.S.C. 2016).
In
June 2016, a Minnesota-based Regis Corporation, which does business as Smart
Style Family Hair Salon, paid $90,000 to resolve allegations of retaliation
discrimination. According to the EEOC complaint, two employees at one of the
company's North Carolina salons were allegedly fired for opposing what they
reasonably believed was an unlawful employment practice. They alleged a
soon-to-be salon manager told them that she did not want African-Americans
working in the salon. The two employees then told an African-American candidate
for an open position at the salon they believed the manager would not hire her
due to her race. The company then purportedly fired the two employees, stating
they had lied. The two year consent decree requires Regis to report the action
it takes in response to any employee's complaint about discrimination and to
post a notice to employees concerning their rights under federal,
anti-discrimination laws. EEOC v. Regis Corp., Civil Action No. 7:15-CV-00151-F
(E.D. N.C. June 2016).
In May
2016, American Casing & Equipment Inc., a Williston-based oil field service
company, paid $250,000 to a Filipino worker it fired after he complained of
harassment to settle a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the
EEOC. The lawsuit alleged that since November 2012, a White manager harassed
the worker of Filipino heritage by directing racial slurs ("non-white
m----f----r," "non-white guy," "spic,"
"n----r," "monkey" and "ape") at him, jabbing him
with a finger in the stomach and chest, and once urinating on his leg while he
worked under a truck. No supervisor made any attempt to stop the abuse. The
employee ultimately was fired after he complained to the company's safety
manager about the harassment. EEOC v. for American Casing & Equipment Inc.,
Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-00066 (DLH-CSM) (D.N.D. May 24, 2016).
In
September 2014, Izza Bending Tube & Wire agreed to pay $45,000 to settle an
EEOC suit alleging that the company retaliated against employee Myrna Peltonen
when it demoted her and reduced her salary after she refused to discriminate
against an African-American employee. The Commission lawsuit charged that
Izza's manager instructed Peltonen not to hire the Black employee, who was
working as a temporary employee, to a permanent position, and told her to get
rid of him because of his race. The EEOC's lawsuit further alleged that after
Peltonen filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, she was laid off and then
terminated in retaliation." The consent decree requires other equitable
relief, including reporting and training. EEOC v. Izza Bending Tube & Wire,
Inc., No. 0:13-cv-02570 (D. Minn. Sep. 19, 2014).
In
March 2014, a federal district court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the EEOC
and ruled that Sparx Restaurant of Menomonie, Wis., must provide back pay with
interest of more than $41,000 in addition to the jury's award of damages of
$15,000 to a former employee who was fired in retaliation for complaining about
a racist display in the workplace. The display included a dollar bill with a
noose around George Washington's neck and drawings of a man on horseback and a
hooded figure with "KKK" written on his hood. After EEOC filed its
case, Sparx Restaurant closed and was replaced by a Denny's franchise. The
district court decided that the companies were a single employer. The court
also entered a three-year injunction, enjoining the defendants from:
discharging employees in retaliation for complaints about racially offensive
postings in their workplace; failing to adopt policies that explicitly prohibit
actions made unlawful under Title VII ; failing to adopt an investigative process with
regard to discrimination claims; and failing to provide annual training
regarding Title VII to Chris Brekken, who owns all interests in the three corporate
defendants, and other managers. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's judgment and held for the first time held that a tax-offset
award was appropriate in a Title VII claim when the lump-sum award place the
employee in a higher tax bracket. The court also held that the new entity
operating as a Denny's franchise was liable as a successor. EEOC v. Northern
Star Hospitality, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00214 (E.D. Wis. Judgment filed Feb. 25,
2014), aff'dl, EEOC v. Northern Star Hospitality, Inc., 777 F.3d 898 (7th Circ. 2015).
In
December 2012, an office and technology supply store paid $85,000 and target
recruitment of African-Americans and Hispanics to settle a retaliation lawsuit
filed by the EEOC. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that OfficeMax violated federal
law when its store manager retaliated against a sales associate after the
associate complained that he had been terminated because he is Hispanic. The
store manager was required to immediately reinstate the sales associate, but
then engaged in a series of retaliatory actions designed to generate reasons to
terminate him again and/or force the sales associate to resign, the agency
alleged. In addition to the monetary settlement, the four year consent decree
contained injunctive relief: OfficeMax agreed to target additional recruitment
efforts in the Sarasota/Bradenton area to reach more African American and
Hispanic applicants, provide training for its management and human resource
personnel in three locations in the Bradenton/Sarasota area on racial
harassment and retaliation, and will report future internal discrimination
complaints to the EEOC. EEOC v. OfficeMax North America, Case No.
8:12-cv-00643-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla. Dec. x, 2012).
In
April 2012, a real estate company in Little Rock agreed to pay $600,000 to
former employees and a class of applicants to settle a race discrimination and
retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC's suit alleged that the company
excluded Black applicants for jobs at the company's Little Rock location based
upon their race. The EEOC also alleged that the company retaliated against
other employees and former employees for opposing or testifying about the race
discrimination, by demoting and forcing one out of her job and by suing others
in state court. In addition to the monetary relief, the three-year consent
decree requires the company to provide mandatory annual three-hour training on
race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII ; have its president or
another officer appear at the training to address the company's
non-discrimination policy and the consequences for discriminating in the
workplace; maintain records of race discrimination and retaliation complaints;
and provide annual reports to the EEOC. EEOC v. Bankers Asset Management, Inc.,
No. 4:10-CV-002070-SWW (E.D. Ark. Apr. 18, 2012).
In
March 2012, a northern Nevada company agreed to pay $50,000 to a Black driver
to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging racial harassment and retaliation. In its complaint,
the EEOC said the driver was subjected to racial slurs by a supervisor and
taunts by White employees. In one instance, the EEOC says a co-worker flaunted
a swastika tattoo and talked about keeping the White race "pure." The
lawsuit alleged that the driver was fired after complaining twice in one month
about the treatment. EEOC v. Sierra Restroom Solutions, LLC, Civ. No.
3:09-CV-00537 (D. Nev. Mar. 20, 2012).
In
March 2012, a Warren, Mich.-based painting company which does business in
several states, will pay $65,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit filed by the
EEOC. The EEOC had charged that the company unlawfully retaliated against an
employee for objecting to race discrimination. In its lawsuit, the EEOC said
that Atsalis retaliated against a journeyman painter, who complained about the
use of the "N-word" by his foreman, by not bringing him back to work
for the 2008 work season. In addition to the monetary award, the decree
requires the company to provide ongoing anti-discrimination training to all of
the company's officers, managers, supervisors and human resources personnel;
create a new anti-discrimination policy; institute new procedures for handling
discrimination complaints; and file reports with the EEOC regarding compliance
with the decree's requirements. EEOC v. Atsalis Bros. Painting Co., Civil
Action No. 11-cv-11296 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2012).
In
November 2011, a furniture company operating in several locations in Puerto
Rico, agreed to pay $40,000 and furnish other relief to settle a charge of
retaliation at a worksite in San Juan. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, a
Puerto Rican store manager allegedly harassed a dark-complexioned Puerto Rican
sales associate because of his skin color (e.g., taunting him about his color
and asking why he was "so Black") and then fired him for complaining.
In addition to requiring a payment of damages, the consent decree settling the
suit prohibits the furniture company from further retaliating against employees
who complain about discrimination and requires the company to amend its current
anti-discrimination policy to conform to EEOC policy and to provide four hours
of anti-discrimination training to all Koper employees, including management
personnel, on a biannual basis. EEOC v. Koper Furniture, Inc., Case No. 09-1563
(JAG) (D.P.R. consent decree approved Nov. 7, 2011)
In
April 2011, a long-term care facility located approximately four miles from
Little Rock, Ark agreed to pay $22,000 in back pay and compensatory damages to
settle an EEOC retaliation case. EEOC charged that the facility violated Title VII when it fired a housekeeping
supervisor allegedly because she had complained that she found certain comments
by her supervisor racist and that she believed a watermelon-eating contest in
the workplace had racist overtones. The EEOC further alleged that, shortly after
she complained, she was discharged for supposedly making "false,
defamatory, and malicious statements" about a supervisor. Under the
two-year consent decree, the company is enjoined from engaging in retaliation,
must instate a new policy on retaliation, and provide two hours of Title VII (including retaliation)
training to all personnel in Little Rock. In addition, the company must submit
two written reports to the EEOC regarding any future retaliation complaints and
all pertinent information related to potential complaints. The consent decree
also requires the company to post a remedial notice for one year and to notify
any potential successors of the consent decree. EEOC v. StoneRidge Health and
Rehab Center, LLC, Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-1414 JMM (E.D. Ark. consent decree
filed April 25, 2011).
In
February 2011, the EEOC settled a suit against a Portland-based seafood
processor and distributor for $85,000 on behalf of a warehouse worker. The
lawsuit asserts that, after the warehouse worker spoke to management about race
discrimination because a non-Hispanic co-worker received a larger raise, he was
told that if he was going to accuse the company of discrimination, they
"should part ways." According to the terms of the settlement, the
seafood distributor agreed to pay the employee $85,000 and redraft its policies
on discrimination and retaliation as well as provide employee training on
workplace discrimination. EEOC v. Pacific Seafood Co., Inc., No. cv-08-1143-ST
(D. Or. settled Feb. 3, 2011).
In November
2010, a nationwide provider of engineering and janitorial services to
commercial clients entered into a 4-year consent decree paying $90,000 in
backpay and compensatory damages to settle the EEOC's claim that it discharged
a building services engineer at a mall in Bethesda, Maryland in retaliation for
complaining of race and sex discrimination. EEOC alleged that the engineer
reported to his supervisor that the mall's operations manager was engaging in
race discrimination and sexual harassment; the supervisor told the engineer to
ignore the operations manager's conduct, and offered to relocate the engineer.
EEOC also alleged that when the engineer declined to relocate, the provider
discharged him. The decree also requires the provider to draft and distribute
written polices against employment discrimination in English and Spanish, which
provide for effective complaint and investigation procedures, including a
toll-free number and e-mail address for complaints, to all employees and
independent contractors who work for defendant in Washington, D.C., Maryland,
and Virginia. The company will name an EEO officer to receive complaints of
discrimination and retaliation, and starting in January 2011, and every 6
months thereafter, will report to EEOC and to defendant's vice president of
national operations on complaints of discrimination and retaliation received
from applicants and employees in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia and the
outcome. Lastly, the company will provide discrimination and retaliation
training of at least 2 hours to supervisors and managers in Washington, D.C.,
Maryland, and Virginia.EEOC v. Crown Energy Services, Inc., No. PJM
8:09-CV-2572 (D. Md. Nov. 30, 2010).
In
September 2010, the EEOC sued an oil well servicing contractor for terminating
an African-American employee allegedly because of his race and for complaining
about racial discrimination. After being subjected to racial slurs and
witnessing a supervisor display a noose with a black stuffed animal hanging
from it, the employee complained. Subsequent to the complaints, the employee
was fired. EEOC v. Basic Energy Services L P, No. 5:10-cv-01497 (W.D. La. filed
Sept. 28, 2010).
In
September 2010, the EEOC filed suit against a Roanoke-based hair salon chain
for allegedly firing an African American hair stylist for complaining about an
assistant manager's racist comments. According to the EEOC's complaint, the
assistant manager subjected the Black stylist to racist slurs in two separate
incidents occurring in March and April 2008. In each incident, the assistant
manager made references to African-Americans using the N-word. On April 24,
2008, the Black stylist met with her operations manager and salon manager and
complained to both supervisors about the assistant manager's offensive remarks.
The EEOC alleges that several weeks later, on May 17, 2008 the salon manager
discharged the stylist in retaliation for her race-related complaint. EEOC v.
Tomlin Hair Care, Inc., dba Cost Cutters Family Hair Care, Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-43
(W.D. Va. filed Sept. 23, 2010).
In
August 2010, a North Carolina poultry processor entered a two-year consent
decree agreeing to pay $40,000 to resolve an EEOC case alleging that the
company engaged in unlawful retaliation. EEOC had asserted that the company
gave an African American employee an unjustifiably negative performance
evaluation shortly after she filed two internal complaints with management
about her White supervisor's use of racially offensive language about her and
in her presence and when it discharged her two weeks after she filed an EEOC
charge because of her dissatisfaction with the company's response to her
discrimination complaints. In accordance with the consent decree, the company
must adopt, implement, and post a formal, written anti-discrimination policy,
provide annual Title VII training for all managers and supervisors and report to the EEOC
semi-annually on any instances where employees opposed unlawful employer
practices. EEOC v. Mountaire Farms of North Carolina Corp., Civil Action No.
7:09-CV-00147 (E.D.N.C. August 6, 2010)
In
October 2007, the Commission obtained $2 million for approximately 50 claimants
in this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant subjected employees in its three
Illinois restaurant/gift stores to sex and race discrimination and retaliation,
causing the constructive discharge of some employees. Female employees were
subjected to offensive sexual comments and touching by managers and coworkers;
Black employees to racially derogatory language, and directives to wait on
customers that White employees refused to serve and to work in the smoking
section; and a White employee to racially offensive language because of her
association with a Black employee. The 2-year consent decree prohibits the company
from engaging in sex and race discrimination and retaliation at the three
stores. EEOC v. David Maus Toyota, Civil Action No. 6:05cv-1452-ORL-28-KRS
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2007).
In
July 2006, EEOC reached a $100,000 settlement in its Title VII lawsuit against a
Springfield, Missouri grocery chain alleging that a Black assistant manager was
subjected to racially derogatory comments and epithets and was permanently
suspended in retaliation for complaining about his store manager's racial
harassment of him and the manager's sexual harassment of another worker. EEOC
v. Roswil, Inc. d/b/a Price Cutters Supermarket, No. 06-3287-CV-S-WAK (W.D. Mo.
July 27, 2006).
In
November 2005, the EEOC obtained a $317,000 settlement in a Title VII case alleging that an
extended stay hotel business discharged and otherwise retaliated against a
district manager (DM) for six properties in Georgia, Alabama, and Virginia
because she complained about race discrimination. The DM, a White female,
e-mailed Defendant's Chief Operating Officer in September 2001 expressing her
concerns about the exclusion of African Americans and other racial minorities
from management positions. Despite being considered a stellar performer,
following her e-mail, the DM was reprimanded, threatened with a PIP, accused of
being disloyal to the company, and terminated. The 24-month consent decree
applies to all of Defendant's facilities in Georgia and include requirements
that Defendant create and institute a nonretaliation policy, advise all employees
that it will not retaliate against them for complaining about discrimination,
and instruct all management and supervisory personnel about the terms of the
decree and provide them with annual training on Title VII's equal employment
obligations, including nonretaliation. EEOC v. InTown Suites Management, Inc.,
No. 1:03-CV-1494-RLV (N.D. Ga. Nov. 21, 2005).
In
February 2005, EEOC settled a retaliation case against Burger King for $65,000,
on behalf of a Caucasian manager who was terminated after refusing to comply
with a Black customer's preference that a "White boy" not make her
sandwich. EEOC v. Star City LLC d/b/a Burger King, No. 6:03-cv-00077 (W.D. Va.
consent decree filed Feb. 11, 2005).
Discharge
In
January 2017, Hospman LLC paid $35,000 and furnish other relief to settle a
race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit,
Hospman fired several Black employees in August 2012 after taking over
management responsibility of a Fort Myers hotel. The EEOC charged that Hospman's
former chief executive officer ordered the housekeeping supervisor to terminate
all of the housekeepers - all but one of whom were Black - because he did not
work with "those kind of people." He also asked the housekeeping
supervisor about her race and, upon learning that she was Black, fired her as
well. The only black front desk attendant also was terminated, while other
non-Black front desk workers were allowed to continue their employment. Under
the consent decree resolving the EEOC's claims, Hospman also will revise
policies regarding race discrimination complaints as set forth in its employee
handbook; conduct annual training of its managers and supervisors on the
requirements of Title VII ; post a notice about the lawsuit for its employees; and report to the
EEOC regarding complaints of race discrimination and the company's employment
practices. EEOC v. Hospman, LLC , Case No. 2:15-cv-00419-JES-CM (M.D. Fla. Jan.
27, 2017).
In
September 2016, SFI of Tennessee LLC agreed to pay $210,000 to settle allegations of race
discrimination. The EEOC charged SFI , a fabricator and supplier of heavy-gauge steel
and value-added products, with discharging three black employees on the same
day because of their race. The three employees worked in the supply chain
department at SFI and allegedly had no performance issues before their discharges.
According to EEOC, SFI replaced the black employees with white employees. The agency alleges
these actions were motivated by race. Purported conduct of this nature violates
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In addition to monetary relief, the company must provide race discrimination
training to all employees. EEOC v. SFI of Tenn. LLC, No. 2:14-cv-02740 (W.D. Tenn.
Sep. 7, 2016).
In
June 2016, Bloom at Belfair, a nursing home in Bluffton, South Carolina, paid
$40,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company discriminated
against an African-American activities director when it fired her in September
2014 because of her race. The EEOC charged that the director's firing followed
the termination of other African-American managers at the facility and was part
of a company plan to eliminate African-Americans from management. In addition
to the monetary relief, the EEOC consent decree requires the company to provide
EEO training and to post a notice about the lawsuit in the workplace. EEOC v.
Bloom at Belfair, No. 9:15-cv-04047-CWH-BM (D.S.C. June 9, 2016).
In
April 2016, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court in an employment
discrimination case alleging race and age discrimination in violation of Title VII and the ADEA, respectively.
The EEOC filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the pro se plaintiff, a
65-year old white female front desk clerk, who repeatedly had been told she was
"too old" and "the wrong color" by the hotel general
manager who terminated her. The Commission argued that, contrary to the
district court's requirement that the plaintiff needed to identify comparators
or a replacement to establish a prima facie case, the discriminatory comments
were direct evidence of animus and sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination as well as raise triable issues of pretext sufficient to
overcome summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit essentially agreed and
concluded that the discriminatory comments constituted circumstantial evidence
of discrimination sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Kilgore v. Trussville
Dev., No. 15-11850 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2016).
In
August 2015, the EEOC won a judgment of more than $365,000 against the Bliss
Cabaret strip club and its parent company this week after a Black bartender was
allegedly fired based on her race. In its lawsuit, the EEOC said the Clearwater
strip club and its successor corporation, Executive Gentlemen's Club, fired a
bartender because its owner said he didn't want a Black bartender working at
the club. The EEOC claimed that former manager who hired her, was suspended and
then fired after he refused to comply with the owner's request. The awarded
relief included punitive damages, compensatory damages, back pay, interest and
tax-penalty offsets. EEOC v. AJ 3860, LLC, d/b/a The Executive Gentlemen's
Club, and Southeast Showclubs, LLC, Civ. No. 8:14-cv-1621-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla.
default judgment filed Aug. 11, 2015).
Chapman University, a private university in Orange, Calif., paid $75,000
and furnished other relief to settle an EEOC race discrimination. The EEOC had
charged that Chapman's George L. Argyros School of Business & Economics
(ASBE) discriminated against Stephanie Dellande, an assistant professor of
marketing, because of her race. The EEOC contended that Dellande was denied
both tenure and promotion to associate professor in 2006 because she is
African-American, despite strong recommendations in her favor by many
professional peers. The university discharged her in June 2008 upon a denial of
her tenure appeal. According to the EEOC's suit, Dellande was the first Black
professor to have been allowed to apply for tenure at the ASBE, and was
subjected to a higher standard for obtaining tenure and promotion than her
non-Black peers. EEOC v. Chapman Univ., No. 8:10-cv-1419(JAK) (C.D. Cal. June
20, 2014).
In September
2012, a Rosemont, Ill.-based food product distributor paid $165,000 and
furnished other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the
EEOC. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that the food distributor violated
federal law by firing an African-American employee who worked at its Memphis
facility because of his race. Specifically, the EEOC said, the company
discharged the black employee after he failed to stop a Caucasian driver who
reported to work under the influence of alcohol from making deliveries on his
route. US Foods did not terminate the Caucasian driver for being under the
influence, or another Caucasian safety specialist who saw the driver at the
first stop on his route. Instead, the company discharged the white driver later
for an unrelated matter. EEOC v. US Foods, Inc. fka U.S. Foodservice, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-02861 (W.D. Tenn. Sep. 12, 2012).
In
April 2012, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Kansas City Southern Railway Company
(KCSR) violated Title VII when engaged in race discrimination by terminating two Black employees
because of work rule violations and retaining their similarly-situated White
co-drivers who were involved in the same incidents leading to Black employees'
dismissals. The Court also took issue with KCSR's failure to document the
reasons for the terminations and inability to identify the decisionmaker. The
Court cautioned: "KCSR is no stranger to Title VII employment discrimination
litigation, and it would behoove KCSR to discharge its burden with greater
acuity." EEOC v. KCSR, No. 09-30558 (5th Cir. 2012).
In
July 2011, a global manufacturer and seller of chemical products in El Dorado,
Ark., will pay $80,000 and furnish other relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit
alleging the company engaged in race discrimination when it terminated Black
employees based upon discriminatory and subjective evaluations. In addition to
the monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit enjoins the company
from terminating employees in its El Dorado central location's Inorganic
Bromine Unit on the basis of race. The company also must provide race and color
discrimination training to all supervisory and management personnel in its IOB
Unit and post a notice reinforcing the company's policies on Title VII . EEOC v. Great Lakes Chemical
Corp., Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-01042 (W.D. Ark. July 12, 2011).
In
February 2011, the EEOC filed suit against an electric company alleging race
discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the company's allegations that the
Black journeyman electrician was in charge of a crew that damaged light
fixtures is a pretext. EEOC contends that the company's superintendant and
foreman, both White, were actually in charge of the crew that caused the
damage. The agency maintains that neither they nor the non-Black employees who
actually caused the damage to the light fixture were terminated. EEOC v. Salem
Electric Co., Civil Action No. 1-11-cv-00119 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2011).
In
December 2010, a cosmetic laboratory settled an EEOC lawsuit charging
discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and retaliation against a
Black employee for $30,000. The laboratory hired the employee, a British
subject born in Zimbabwe, for a full-time internship. Upon arrival, her
employer realized she was Black and her supervisors gave her no direction and
very few assignments despite her requests for work. The company's other two
interns, who were White, participated in projects and worked closely with
supervisors. When the Black intern raised concerns about unequal treatment with
management, she was fired. In addition to the damages payment, the settlement
requires that the laboratory adopt a non-discrimination policy and complaint
procedure and conduct anti-discrimination training for its staff. EEOC v. Northwest
Cosmetic Labs LLC, Civil Action No. 10-608-CWD (D. Idaho Dec. 29, 2010).
In May
2009, the federal district court in Minnesota dismissed the EEOC's lawsuit
alleging that a Minneapolis-based company provided contract human resources
services to more than 37,000 entities, allegedly disciplined and fired a Ph.D.
social worker because of his race (African American) and his complaints about
race discrimination. According to the EEOC, the six-year employee had his work
scrutinized more critically than non-Black employees, was placed on a
performance improvement plan because of his race, and was fired when he
complained despite his excellent performance history and numerous awards. EEOC
v. Ceridian Corp., Civil Action No. 07-cv-4086 (D. Minn. May 26, 2009).
In
February 2008, the Commission upheld an AJ's finding of race and color
discrimination where a probationary employee was terminated from his position
of Part-Time Flexible Letter Carrier. Although complainant was a probationary
employee, the record reflected that he worked at the same level or better than
other full-time carriers. The Commission found that, as no other probationary
employee was available as a comparator, complainant established a prima facie
case of discrimination by creating an inference of race and color
discrimination. Further, the Commission found that the agency failed to provide
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating complainant because the
responsible management official failed to specify a standard to which
complainant was compared when he determined that complainant was not performing
at an acceptable level. Complainant was reinstated to his position with
backpay. Artis v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070032
(February 4, 2008).
In
October 2007, a trial court determined that EEOC is entitled to a trial on its
claim that a Toyota car dealership engaged in a wholesale elimination of Blacks
in management when it demoted and ultimately terminated all of its African
American managers because of their race. See EEOC v. David Maus Toyota, Civil
Action No. 6:05cv-1452-ORL-28-KRS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2007).
In
July 2007, the EEOC received a favorable jury verdict in its Title VII lawsuit against the Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P) alleging that a Black senior
manager terminated a White manager because of his race. The jury concluded the
White manager was discharged solely because of his race and awarded
approximately $85,000 in monetary relief. EEOC v. Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co., C.A. No. 1:05-cv-01211-JFM (D.Md. verdict filed July 30, 2007).
In
December 2005, the Commission resolved for $145,000 this Title VII case alleging that a global
company discharged a traffic clerk in a Colorado warehouse, based on his race (Black)
and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The traffic clerk
asserted that, prior to his discharge, his coworker, a White woman, expounded
on her view that African Americans are more athletic than Whites because they
were inbred as slaves and have an extra muscle in their legs, that she was
afraid to be around certain people of color, and that a customer was entitled
use the "n-word" in reference to the clerk based on freedom of
speech. The clerk told her she should take her hood off and not burn a cross on
his lawn. Defendant investigated the racial incidents, but failed to interview
two Black employee witnesses and fired the clerk in part for the hood and cross
comment he made. Neither the White coworker nor the supervisors who witnessed
the racial incidents were disciplined. The 3-year consent decree enjoins
defendant's Golden, Colorado facility from discriminating on the basis of race
and from retaliation. EEOC v. Exel, Inc., No. 04-CV-2005-RPM-BNB (D. Col. Dec.
20, 2005).
TYPES OF RACE/COLOR DISCRIMINATION
Color Discrimination
In
June 2015, a Laughlin hotel has agreed to pay $150,000 to six Latino or
brown-skinned workers who were "subjected to a barrage of highly offensive
and derogatory comments about their national origin and/or skin color since
2006." A federal lawsuit filed by the EEOC alleged that supervisors amd
coworkers were "constantly" targeted with slurs such as "taco
bell," "bean burrito" and "f____ aliens." The lawsuit
also said workers were told not to speak Spanish on break, at least one
employee lost his job after complaining about the treatment, and the company
failed to correct the problems. In addition to monetary relief, the four-year
consent decree required Pioneer Hotel must hire a consultant to help implement
policies, procedures and training for all workers to prevent discrimination,
harassment and retaliation. The company also will receive additional training
on its responsibilities under Title VII, will have to immediately report
complaints to the human resources department, and must create a centralized
system to track complaints. EEOC v. Pioneer Hotel, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Hotel and
Gambling Hall, Case No. 2:11-cv-01588-LRH-GWF (D. Nev. June 17, 2015).
In
June 2015, Pioneer Hotel, Inc. in Laughlin, Nevada agreed to pay $150,000 and
furnish other relief to settle a national origin and color discrimination
lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC charged that a class of Latino and/or
brown-skinned workers was subjected to a barrage of highly offensive and
derogatory comments about their national origin and/or skin color since at
least 2006. Housekeeping and security department staffers in particular were
constantly the targets of slurs by several supervisors and co-workers. In
addition, the EEOC asserted that Latino / brown-skinned workers were told not to
speak Spanish during their break times. Pioneer failed to stop and rectify the
harassment and discrimination despite repeated complaints by the Latino /
brown-skinned workers. Pioneer entered into a four-year consent decree that
prohibits Pioneer from creating, facilitating or permitting a hostile work
environment for employees who are Latino or darker-skinned. Additionally, the
hotel agreed to hire an outside equal employment opportunity consultant to
ensure that the company implements effective policies, procedures and training
for all employees to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
Pioneer management will receive additional training on its responsibilities
under Title VII ; be required to immediately report complaints to the human resources
department; create a centralized system to track complaints; and be held
accountable for failing to take appropriate action. Notice of consent decree
will be visibly posted at the hotel. EEOC v. Pioneer Hotel, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer
Hotel and Gambling Hall, Case No. 2:11-cv-01588-LRH-GWF (D. Nev. settlement
June 18, 2015).
In
March 2012, a Fairfax County, Va.-based stone contracting company agreed to pay
$40,000 and furnish other significant relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging
national origin, religion and color discrimination. According to the EEOC's
suit, an estimator and assistant project manager was subjected to derogatory
comments from his supervisors, project manager and the company's owner on the
basis of his national origin (Pakistani), religion (Islam), and color (brown).
The lawsuit indicated that the comments occurred almost daily and included
things like telling the estimator he was the same color as human feces. The
lawsuit also alleged that the estimator was told that his religion (Islam), was
"f---ing backwards," and "f---ing crazy," and was asked why
Muslims are such "monkeys." Pursuant to the three-year consent decree
enjoining the company from engaging in any further discrimination against any
person on the basis of color, national origin, or religion, the contracting
company also agreed to redistribute the company's anti-harassment policy to
each of its current employees; post its anti-harassment policies in all of its
facilities and work sites; provide anti-harassment training to its managers,
supervisors and employees; and post a notice about the settlement. EEOC v. Rugo
Stone, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-915 (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 2012).
In
April 2011, the EEOC found that the transportation department engaged in race
and color discrimination when it failed to select the Complainant, the Acting
Division Secretary, for the position of Division Secretary. The EEOC found the
Agency's explanation to be "so fraught with contradiction as not to be
credible," and thus, a pretext for discrimination. The EEOC noted that
Complainant discussed her experience as Acting Division Secretary in her KSA
responses, and, contrary to the Agency's assertion, made numerous references to
acting as a Division Secretary in her application. The EEOC ordered the
placement of Complainant into the Division Secretary position, with appropriate
back pay and benefits, and payment of attorney's fees and costs. Bowers v.
Dep't of Transp., EEOC Appeal No. 0720100034 (Apr. 15, 2011).
In
February 2009, a discount retail chain agreed to pay $7,500 to resolve an EEOC
lawsuit alleging that Title VII was violated when a light skinned Black female
manager subjected darker skinned African American employees to a hostile and
abusive work environment because of their color. The lawsuit alleged that the
manager told one employee she looked as "Black as charcoal" and
repeatedly called her "charcoal" until she quit. The parties entered
a consent decree that enjoins the company from engaging in color discrimination
or retaliation. Pursuant to the consent decree, the retail chain's store
manager and assistant managers must receive training on color discrimination,
the chain must keep records on any complaint of color discrimination and all
information related to the complaint, and it must submit reports on these
matters to the EEOC. EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-06996
(N.D. Ill. settled Feb. 17, 2009).
In
April 2008, a national video store entered a consent decree to pay $80,000 and
to provide neutral references for the claimant in resolution of the EEOC's
Title VII lawsuit against it. The EEOC
alleged that the store engaged in color discrimination when a Bangladeshi
employee who was assigned to be store manager of a Staten Island location
allegedly was told by her district supervisor that Staten Island was a
predominantly White neighborhood and that she should change her dark skin color
if she wanted to work in the area. EEOC asserted that the supervisor also
allegedly told her that she really should be working in Harlem with her dark
skin color and threatened to terminate her if she did not accept a demotion and
a transfer to the Harlem store. The employee also was subjected to national
origin discrimination based on her name and accent when the district supervisor
allegedly excluded the employee from staff meetings because he said the other
employees could not understand her accent and asked her to change her name
because the customers could not pronounce it. The consent decree enjoins the
video store from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin
and requires the store to post a remedial notice in the store in question and
the EEO Poster in all locations across the country. EEOC v. Blockbuster, Inc.,
C.A. No. 1:07-cv-02221 (S.D.N.Y. filed settled Apr. 7, 2008).
In May
2006, the Commission won a Title VII case filed on behalf of Asian Indian legal
aliens who were victims of human trafficking, enslavement, and job segregation
because of their race, national origin, and dark-skinned color. Chellen &
EEOC v. John Pickle Co., Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 1069 (N.D. Okl. 2006).[1]
In
August 2003, the EEOC obtained a $40,000 settlement on behalf of an African
American former employee who was discriminated against based on his dark skin
color by a light skinned African American manager, and terminated when he
complained to corporate headquarters. EEOC v. Applebee's Int'l Inc., No.
1:02-CV-829 (D. Ga. Aug. 7, 2003).
Reverse Discrimination
In
June 2015, the EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of a pro se plaintiff
whose race and age discrimination case was dismissed for failure to establish a
prima facie case. The Commission argued in this appeal that the district court
erred in dismissing the case because the general manager's repeated references
to the plaintiff's race and age, such as "you're the wrong color" and
"you're too old" along with plaintiff's supervisor's comment to her,
"old white bi…" shortly before the general manager and supervisor
terminated plaintiff were sufficient to establish a prima facie case and to
provide evidence of pretext. Kilgore v. Trussville Develop., LLC, No. 15-11850
(11th Cir. brief filed June 22, 2015).
In
September 2012, the County of Kauai in Hawaii paid $120,000 to settle a federal
charge of race harassment filed with the EEOC. A former attorney for the County
of Kauai's Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, who is Caucasian, alleged that
she was harassed due to her race by a top-level manager. The manager allegedly
made continually disparaging comments to the former attorney, saying that she
needed to assimilate more into the local culture and break up with her
boyfriend at the time, also White, in favor of a local boy. The EEOC ultimately
found reasonable cause to believe that the county violated Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the harassment to which the former attorney was
subjected. Following the determination, the County of Kauai entered into an
over two-year conciliation agreement with the EEOC and the alleged victim.
Aside from the monetary relief, the county agreed to establish policies and
complaint procedures dealing with discrimination and harassment in the
workplace and to provide live EEO training to all managers and supervisors. The
county further agreed to post notices on the matter on all bulletin boards
throughout the county and to permit the disclosure of the settlement.
In
September 2012, the County of Kauai in Hawaii agreed to pay $120,000 to settle
an EEOC charge of race harassment, alleging that a Caucasian former attorney
for the County's Office of the Prosecuting Attorney was subjected to racially
disparaging comments by a top-level manager. The manager allegedly referred to
the Caucasian attorney as haole, and advised the former attorney that she
needed to assimilate more into the local culture and break up with her
boyfriend at the time, also White, in favor of a local boy. Aside from the
monetary relief, the county agreed to establish policies and complaint
procedures dealing with discrimination and harassment in the workplace and to
provide live EEO training to all managers and supervisors. The county further
agreed to post notices on the matter on all bulletin boards throughout the
county and to permit the disclosure of the settlement.
In
June 2011, a national women's off-priced clothing retailer agreed to pay
$246,500 and furnish other relief to 32 class members to settle a race
discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. EEOC had alleged that the retailer
denied employment to Caucasian applicants since early 2007. During that time,
the EEOC contended, the retailer regularly hired Black entry-level applicants
for sales positions, but excluded White applicants who were equally or better
qualified. The store manager allegedly told one applicant that the store "does
not hire White people." EEOC v. Dots, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-00318-JVB-APR (N.D.
Ind. June 3, 2011).
In
July 2010, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the EEOC's rulings on race
discrimination and retaliation claims in a case brought by a White
"policymaking level" employee under the Government Employee Rights
Act. John Linehan contested his removal as chief deputy coroner by the elected
coroner, who is African American. Among other reasons for removal, the coroner
testified that he disagreed with Linehan's attempts to discipline certain
subordinate employees. The Court decided that there was substantial evidence to
support the Commission's determination that the coroner's reasons for Linehan's
demotion and subsequent termination were pretextual. In its view, the coroner's
"lack of credibility, combined with his stated preference for employing
African-Americans and his actions taken in furtherance of that goal, was
sufficient for the EEOC to find that Linehan was subjected to race
discrimination." However, the court vacated the $200,000 compensatory
damages award as excessive and ruled that the EEOC and Linehan either could
accept the remitted amount of $20,000 or hold a new hearing on the issue.
Marion County v. EEOC & Linehan, No. 09-3595 (7th Cir. July 27, 2010).
In May
2009, the fast food giant Jack in the Box has agreed to pay $20,000 to settle a
lawsuit alleging that the company did not take prompt action after a White
hostess at its Nashville restaurant complained she was being harassed by Black
co-workers who called her racial epithets and insulted her when they learned
she was pregnant with a mixed-race child. EEOC v. Jack in the Box, No.
3:08-cv-009663 (M.D. Tenn. settled May 19, 2009).
In
April 2009, a private historically Black college located in Columbia, S.C.
agreed to settle a Title VII lawsuit alleging that it discriminated against
three White faculty members because of their race when it failed to renew their
teaching contracts for the 2005-2006 school year, effectively terminating them.
EEOC v. Benedict College, No. 3:09-cv-00905-JFA-JRM (D.S.C. April 8, 2009).
Same Race Discrimination
In
November 2007, the district court ruled in favor of the EEOC in its Title VII suit alleging that a Texas
transportation shuttle service discriminated against African American drivers
in favor of native African drivers by denying them the more profitable routes,
sending them to destinations where no passengers awaited pickup, and
misappropriating tips earned by the Black American drivers and instead giving
them to the African drivers. The judgment prohibits Ethio Express's President,
Berhane T. Tesfamariam , and his business partner Mohammed Bedru from engaging
in other discriminatory practices in the future. The judgment also assessed
$37,197.00 in monetary damages against Ethio Express. EEOC v. Ethio Express
Shuttle Service, Inc. dba Texans Super Shuttle, No. H-06-1096 (S.D. Tex.
judgment entered Nov. 2007).
In
July 2006, EEOC settled a Title VII action against a Dallas-based HIV service
agency, in which four Black employees were allegedly racially harassed by the
center's founder and former Executive Director, who is also African American.
The persistent same-race harassment - which was reported to management and the
Board of Directors - included graphic language, racial slurs and pejorative
insults. Although it ceased operations, the agency agreed to pay $200,000 to
the aggrieved employees.EEOC v. Renaissance III, No. 3:05-1063-B (N.D. Tex.
July 19, 2006).
In
September 1998, an EEOC AJ properly decided that a Black male hospital director
who abused all employees was not insulated from liability for racially
harassing an African American female where evidence showed that she was the
target of more egregious and public abuse than other employees. Evidence
revealed that the director told her he only hired because she is a Black woman,
he often used profanity toward her, referred to her by race and gender slurs,
singled her out for verbal abuse in front of other employees, told plaintiff to
"get your Black ass out of here", and told her and other Black
managers they better not file EEO complaints. Veterans Admin., EEOC No.
140-97-8374x-RNS (Sept. 21, 1998).
Intersectional Discrimination/Harassment
Race/Age
In
December 2016, the EEOC affirmed the Administrative Judge's (AJ) finding of
race and age discrimination involving a 47-year old Black applicant. Following
a hearing, the AJ found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agency)
discriminated against Complainant on the bases of race and age when it did not
select him for a Contracting Officer position. The AJ determined that
Complainant's qualifications were plainly superior to the Selectee's
qualifications in that Complainant had more years of contracting experience,
had contracting experience involving more complex matters and higher monetary
amounts, and had more years of supervisory experience. The AJ also found that
the Selecting Official's testimony about the Selectee's qualifications was not
credible and was not supported by the documentation in the record. On appeal,
the Commission concluded that the AJ's finding was supported by substantial
evidence, and agreed with the AJ that the Agency's legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting Complainant was a pretext for race
and age discrimination. While the Agency asserted that the Selecting Official's
selection history precluded a finding of discrimination, the Commission stated
that selection history is not controlling, and the AJ reasonably relied upon
Complainant's prior performance appraisal as an indicator of his performance.
Further, the AJ was entitled to draw a reasonable inference from the fact that
the Selecting Official did not contact Complainant's supervisor despite having
contacted the Selectee's most recent supervisor. The Agency was ordered, among
other things, to offer Complainant the position, pay him appropriate back pay
and benefits, and pay him $5,000 in proven compensatory damages. Neil M. v.
Dep't of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 0720140005 (Dec. 9, 2016).
In March 2012, a financial services
company formerly located in various cities in Michigan agreed to settle for
$55,000 an age and race discrimination suit brought by the EEOC. The EEOC
lawsuit alleged that that Wells Fargo Financial failed to promote a highly
qualified 47-year-old African-American loan processor on the basis of age and
race. The loan processor applied for a promotion but was passed over for five
lesser qualified Caucasian women aged between 23 and 30 who were based in
various other branch offices, even though the processor had the best
combination of relevant, objective scores that measured productivity, was
"loan processor of the year" for 2007, the year immediately preceding
the promotion decision, worked at the one of the largest and most profitable
offices in the relevant district, and was the "go-to person" for the
district on loan processing. EEOC v. Wells Fargo Financial Michigan, Inc., Case
No. 2:10-CV-13517 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2012).
In
November 2011, one of the nation's largest retailers will pay $100,000 and
furnish other relief to settle the EEOC's race, sex and age discrimination and
retaliation lawsuit. According to the EEOC lawsuit, an over 40,
African-American female employee who worked in loss prevention at several Sears
stores in the Oklahoma City area, from 1982 until her termination in March of
2010, was passed over for promotion to supervisor several times beginning in
2007 in favor of younger, less experienced, White males. Sears allegedly
retaliated against Johnson for her initial EEOC discrimination charge in
September 2007 by subjecting her to worsening terms and conditions at work. In
addition to the $100,000 payment, Sears has agreed to take specified actions
designed to prevent future discrimination, including the posting of
anti-discrimination notices to employees, dissemination of its
anti-discrimination policy and providing anti-discrimination training to
employees. EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 5:10-cv-01068-R (W.D. Okla.
Nov. 4, 2011).
In October 2010, defendants, a Spring,
Texas, new and used car dealership and its general partner, agreed to pay
$160,000 and provide neutral references indicating their eligibility for rehire
to a 50-year-old White male used car salesperson (Robinson) and a 50-year-old
African American male used car salesperson (Cotton). EEOC alleged that an
African American male sales supervisor subjected Cotton to derogatory comments
about his age and made sexual advances towards him. The supervisor also
allegedly threatened Robinson, that he would "get back at" him for
the "terrible things whites had done to blacks" in the past and
allegedly berated him for being "too old" for the job and
"washed up" in the industry. Robinson reported the misconduct to
several managers, but rather than taking corrective action, the director of
used cars joined in the harassing conduct. Robinson later transferred to a
lower-paid sales position to avoid the sales supervisor, but the sales
supervisor ultimately transferred to a position in finance where he was
responsible for approving paperwork on all sales, and he refused to process any
of Robinson's sales transactions, causing Robinson to resign the same month.
The 2-year consent decree enjoins sex and race harassment and discrimination
and retaliation in violation of Title VII and age discrimination under the ADEA.
Annually, defendants must provide copies of the decree to all supervisors and
managers, and obtain signed statements that they have read the decree and agree
to be bound by its terms. EEOC v. Autotainment Partners Ltd., P'ship d/b/a
Planet Ford and Worldwide Autotainmentt, Inc., No. 4:09-CV-03096 (S.D. Tex.
Oct. 12, 2010).
In
June 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a Kansas-based
national employment staffing firm settled for $125,000 a case on behalf of a
White, 55-year-old former employee who allegedly was treated less favorably
than younger Black colleagues and fired when she complained. According to the
Commission's lawsuit, the staffing company unlawfully discriminated against a
senior functional analyst, who was the oldest employee and only Caucasian in
the department, because of her race and age in violation of Title VII and the ADEA when a young,
African American supervisor subjected her to different treatment and terminated
her when she complained. EEOC v. Spencer Reed Group, No. 1:09-CV-2228 (N.D. Ga.
consent decree approved 6/8/10).
In
August 2006, a Pennsylvania health care company agreed to pay $16,000 to two
older workers who allegedly were denied promotions based on their race (Black)
and their ages (50 and 53), despite their extensive relevant experience of 13+
years. EEOC alleged that, instead of promoting one older Black employee, the
company promoted a 28-year old Caucasian employee with seven months of
experience and who did not meet the stated criteria for the position. In the
two-year consent decree, the company states it will avoid engaging in racial
discrimination or retaliation and must post a remedial notice and provide Title
VII training to all supervisors
and managers. In addition, the company must provide training in its policies on
hiring, promotion, transfer, and co-employment. EEOC v. Mainline Health Care,
No.05-cv-4092(CN) (E.D. Pa. settled Aug. 25, 2006).
In
October 2007, the EEOC resolved a discrimination lawsuit alleging race and age
discrimination for $48,000. The EEOC had charged that a South Carolina beauty
salon violated federal law by refusing to promote a 51-year-old African
American stylist. Between June and September 2006, three employees resigned
from the salon manager position and in filling the salon manager position all
three times, the salon selected a succession of three White employees from
other salons whose ages ranged from late teens to early 20s even though the
Black stylist was more than qualified to fill the position. EEOC v. Regis
Corporation d/b/a SmartStyle, Civil Action No.7:06-cv-02734 (D.S.C. settled
October 5, 2007).
In
June 2007, the Commission affirmed its decision that complainant, a 48-year old
Black male Supervisory Deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service, was not selected
for the position of Assistant Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal because of race,
gender, and age discrimination when the agency's Career Board selected a
34-year old Caucasian female based on her academy achievement, work experience
and interview. The Commission found that the record showed that complainant's
qualifications were observably superior to those of the selectee, and concluded
that the agency's stated reasons for not selecting complainant for the position
in question were a pretext for discrimination. The agency was ordered to
appoint complainant to the position of Assistant Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal,
with back pay and benefits, and pay complainant $50,000.00 and attorney's fees.
Washington v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060092 (February 8,
2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520070324 (June
15, 2007).
In
November 2006, the EEOC affirmed an AJ's findings that a federal employee
complainant was not selected for promotion to Team Leader based on race
(African American), sex (female) and age (DOB 2/14/54), notwithstanding her
qualifications, and that she was subjected to discriminatory harassment by the
same management official. The decision awarded complainant a retroactive
promotion with back pay, $150,000 in compensatory damages and attorneys fees
and costs. Goodridge v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050026 (November15, 2006).
In
June 2006, a Newark port facility paid $28,500 to settle a race and age discrimination
lawsuit brought by EEOC, which alleged that the facility's new manager
mistreated and then fired a 56-year-old African American customer service
representative, who was the only Black and oldest of seven employees, because
of her race and age. EEOC v. Port Elizabeth Terminal & Warehouse, Civil
Action 05-cv-4828 (WJM) (D.N.J. June 22, 2006).
Race/Disability
In
December 2009, a telemarketing company agreed to pay $60,000 to a Black former
employee who EEOC alleged was immediately terminated following a diabetic
episode at work in violation of Title VII and the ADA. The consent decree enjoins the
company from engaging in racial discrimination and requires it to post a remedial
notice and arrange training in racial discrimination for its managers and
supervisors. The company also must submit reports to the EEOC on its compliance
with the consent decree. See EEOC v. RMG Communications, LLC, Civil Action No.
1:08-cv-0947-JDT-TAB (S.D. Ind. settled Dec. 16, 2009).
In
November 2007, the Commission upheld an Administrative Judge's finding of
discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and
disability (cervical strain/sprain) when complainant was not accommodated with
a high back chair. The agency was ordered to provide complainant with backpay
for the period she was out of work due to the failure to accommodate, and
complainant was awarded $2,250 in compensatory damages. Jones v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070069 (November 8, 2007).
An
EEOC Administrative Judge's finding that a blanket policy excluding employees
with Type I and II Diabetes adversely impacted African Americans and Native
Americans resulted in a settlement and change in policy.
In
June 2005, an AJ found direct evidence of retaliation and circumstantial
evidence of race discrimination where the agency's managers did not act on the
Black complainant's plea for mail handling assistance for many months before
the complainant injured himself. The managers told him that he should have
thought of this [that he might need future assistance from them] before he
filed his [previous] EEO complaint. They also treated him differently than
non-Black employees. The complainant suffered debilitating and career-ending
shoulder, neck, arm, and back injuries and lapsed into a major depression. The
AJ awarded 28 months of back pay and 24 months of from pay; lost benefits;
compensatory damages of $120,000 for physical and mental pain and suffering;
and approximately $40,000 in attorney's fees and costs. See USPS, EEOC Hearing
No. 370-2004-00099X (June 21, 2005).
In
April 2004, a letter carrier prevailed in part on his federal sector complaint
alleging employment discrimination based on race/national origin (Asian),
disability (PTSD), and retaliation. The allegations included that the Postal
facility forced him to remain in a plywood shack for hours each day; disabled
postal workers were routinely assigned to "the Box," as it was
called, while non-disabled workers were never assigned to "the Box;"
employees consigned to "the Box" did not have a telephone, radio,
computer, or any other equipment with which to perform any work and were not
given any work assignments; and the disabled employees were required to knock
on a little window in "the Box" when they needed to use to the
restroom. AJ found that the Agency discriminated against this letter carrier on
the basis of disability when it forced him to remain in the plywood shack, and
when it denied him leave, but decided the remaining claims in the favor of the
agency. The Commission affirmed the AJ's decision awarding $75,000.00 in
non-pecuniary compensatory damages, restoration of sick leave, payment of
attorneys fees and other expenses, and the dismantling of "the Box."
See USPS, EEOC Hearing No. 270-2003-090077X (April 20, 2004).
Race/Gender
In
July 2012, hotel groups Pacific Hospitality and Seasons Hotel agreed to pay
$365,000 and provide preventative measures to settle a federal harassment
lawsuit by the EEOC. The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that the general manager
who worked at both the Best Western Evergreen Inn (formerly La Quinta Federal
Way) and Best Western Tacoma Dome persistently harassed and denigrated women,
including those who were minorities and had strong religious beliefs, in
violation of federal law. According to the EEOC, female employees were
subjected to the constant use of racial slurs and derogatory sex-based and
racial comments, yelling and physical intimidation. One employee had a stapler
thrown at her head while another was told she was nothing but a "welfare
mother" and should abort her pregnancy. The EEOC also alleged that the
general manager also illegally fired five women after they revealed they were
pregnant. Further, the EEOC alleged that the harasser belittled the various
religious beliefs of employees, including calling a professed Christian
"weak-minded" and allegedly telling another employee that she should have
an abortion because she already had a child, and that she was her own God and
could control her own destiny. EEOC v. Pacific Hospitality LLC d/b/a La Quinta
Inn Federal Way, No. 3:10-CV-5175 (W.D. Wash. consent decree entered July 3,
2012).
In
May 2011, the nation's second-largest pharmacy chain, a new owner of Longs
Drugs, agreed to pay $55,000 to settle an EEOC race and sex discrimination
lawsuit alleging that Longs subjected an African-American female product buyer
to a hostile environment after hiring her in January 2007, and firing her in
May 2008 in retaliation for her complaint to company managers. The suit claimed
that the buyer was given more difficult tasks and less assistance than her
colleagues who were not Black and female, was unfairly disciplined for
performance scores that were higher than those of her White female co-workers
who did not face any disciplinary action, and that the supervisor gave her
White co-workers permission for vacation days but ignored the Black buyer's
earlier requests for the same days. The suit further alleged that within a few
months after the Black female buyer complained to human resources department
about the differential treatment, she was discharged from her position.
Although all of the alleged events occurred before the chain purchased Longs,
the chain has agreed to institute new anti-discrimination staff training
procedures.EEOC v. Longs Drugs & CVS Caremark, Civ No. 3:10-CV-04384-RS
(May 31, 2011).
In
April 2011, a federal district court in Tennessee reaffirmed a court judgment
of $1,073,261 when it denied the world's leading manufacturer and marketer of
major home appliances' motion to reduce the victim's front and back pay awards.
In December 2009, EEOC won the $1 million judgment in a race and sex discrimination
suit following a four-day trial. The evidence showed that a Black female
employee reported escalating offensive verbal conduct and gestures by her White
male coworker over a period of two months before he physically assaulted her at
the Tennessee-based facility; four levels of Whirlpool's management were aware
of the escalating harassment; Whirlpool failed to take effective steps to stop
the harassment; and the employee suffered devastating permanent mental injuries
that will prevent her from working again as a result of the assault and
Whirlpool's failure to protect her. On January 15, 2011, the corporation asked
that the damages be reduced because, inter alia, the plant where the victim had
worked had closed. The court denied the request. EEOC v. Whirlpool Corp., Civil
Action No. 3:06-0593 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 1, 2011). Whirlpool appealed. On June 11,
2012, Whirlpool Corporation agreed to pay one million dollars and court costs
to settle the lawsuit, drawing to a close six years of litigation.
In March 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the judgment of the district court against a major auto parts chain because it
had permitted an African American female customer service representative (rep)
to be sexually harassed by her Hispanic store manager. The manager's harassment
included "humping" her from behind, grabbing her head, demanding that
she perform oral sex on him, telling customers that she had AIDS "because
it was proven that 83 percent of African American women had AIDS," calling
her a slut, and slapping her in the face with his penis. The jury awarded
$15,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages to the rep. The
Ninth Circuit ruled that the jurors could have reasonably determined that the
district manager and regional human resources manager failed to exercise
reasonable care to correct promptly "the obscene and harassing
behavior" of the store since management did not check the video cameras
that were in parts of the store where the rep was assaulted, the investigation was
not confidential, certain employees were never interviewed, the harassment was
not reported to the corporate office, critical corroborating evidence was lost,
and the rep had complained to management "immediately and
repeatedly." The Court also affirmed the punitive damages award because a
reasonable juror could conclude that the company had not acted in good faith to
comply with Title VII when the human resources manager threatened to terminate the rep for
hitting the store manager while defending herself against the sexual assault.
AutoZone, Inc. v. EEOC, 2011 WL 883658 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2011).
In
March 2007, EEOC upheld an AJ's finding that complainant was subjected to a
hostile work environment on the bases of her race (African American) and sex
(female) when management: yelled at complainant; refused to communicate with
her on work matters; failed to assist her; interfered with her work; removed
her space leasing duties and responsibilities which fundamentally changed the
nature of her position; and engaged in an effort to get her off the leasing
team. Remedial relief included back pay, benefits including reimbursement of
leave, compensatory damages and attorney's fees, posting of a notice, training,
and recommended disciplinary action against the responsible management
officials. Burton v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050066
(March 6, 2007).
In
December 2004, the Commission affirmed an AJ's finding that a Black female
complainant was subjected to discrimination on the basis of her race and sex
with regard to the processing and approval of her application for telecommuting
and her request for advanced sick leave. The Commission noted that, while
complainant was asked to provide additional information concerning child care
and told that she would have to submit to a home inspection, a White male
employee who also had children at home was not asked to do so. The agency was
ordered to pay complainant $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, expunge any
derogatory materials relating to complainant's performance, and pay attorney's
fees and costs.Ellis-Balone v. Department of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 07A30125
(December 29, 2004).
In
September 2004, an AJ determined that a Black male complainant was subjected to
race discrimination when he was not selected for an EEO Specialist (Mediator)
position despite having performed the duties of the position in the area in
which he applied. Testimony in the record showed that the approving official
was biased against those of complainant's race, particularly males. In
addition, it was suspected that none of the seven members of complainant's race
who had been performing the Mediator duties were selected for the position,
while the one individual outside of complainant's race was chosen. See
McMillian v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40088 (September
28, 2004), requests for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05A50171
(December 13, 2004), & EEOC Request No. 05A50361 (April 25, 2005).
Race/National Origin
In
March 2017, an Illinois sheet metal and HVAC company paid $325,000 to settle
EEOC charges that it subjected a Black Puerto Rican worker to national origin,
race and color harassment that culminated in a brutal physical assault. The
harassment by White employees of King-Lar Co. directed at the employee included
calling him "Mexican nigger," "wetback" and "nigger
slave," the Commission alleged in a lawsuit filed in August 2015. Under a
30-month consent decree, the company must designate an EEOC-approved individual
to conduct independent investigations into future complaints of workplace
harassment and determine what, if any, disciplinary and corrective action needs
to be taken in response to a harassment complaint. King-Lar's policies and
training materials also must reference the name and contact information for the
designated employee as well as an 800 number and website that employees can use
to make anonymous complaints. The company also agreed to fulfill
notice-posting, training, and reporting requirements. EEOC v. King-Lar Co., No.
3:15-cv-03238 (C.D. Ill. consent decree filed 3/29/17).
In December 2012, an agricultural farm in
Norman Park, Ga., has agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of American seasonal
workers - many of them African-American - who, the EEOC alleged, were subjected
to discrimination based on their national origin and/or race. The EEOC's suit
had charged that the company unlawfully engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination against American workers by firing virtually all American
workers while retaining workers from Mexico during the 2009, 2010 and 2011 growing
seasons. The agency also alleged that Hamilton Growers fired at least 16
African-American workers in 2009 based on race and/or national origin as their
termination was coupled with race-based comments by a management official.
Additionally, the lawsuit charged that Hamilton Growers provided lesser job
opportunities to American workers by assigning them to pick vegetables in
fields which had already been picked by foreign workers, which resulted in
Americans earning less pay than their Mexican counterparts. Pursuant to the
consent decree settling the suit, the Hamilton Growers will exercise good faith
in hiring and retaining qualified workers of American national origin and
African-American workers for all farm work positions, including supervisory
positions. Hamilton Growers will also implement non-discriminatory hiring
measures, which include targeted recruitment and advertising, appointment of a
compliance official, and training for positive equal employment opportunity
management practices. The company has also pledged, among other things, to
create a termination appeal process; extend rehire offers to aggrieved
individuals from the 2009-2012 growing seasons; provide transportation for
American workers which is essential to viable employment in that part of the
country; and limit contact between the alleged discriminating management
officials and American workers. The decree also provides for posting
anti-discrimination notices, record-keeping and reporting to the EEOC. EEOC v.
Hamilton Growers, Inc. d/b/a Southern Valley Fruit and Vegetable, Inc., No.
11-cv-134 (M.D. Ga. consent decree filed 12/10/12).
In
August 2011, New York University agreed to pay $210,000 in lost wages and
compensatory damages to settle a racial and national origin harassment lawsuit
by the EEOC, alleging that an African NYU Library employee from Ghana was
subjected to racial slurs, such as "monkey" and "gorilla"
and insults such as "do you want a banana," "go back to the
jungle," and "go back to your cage" by his mailroom supervisor.
Pursuant to a three-year consent decree, the university also will improve and
implement university-wide enhanced policies and complaint procedures; designate
an EEO coordinator to monitor NYU's compliance with federal anti-discrimination
laws; conduct in-person, comprehensive EEO training sessions for employees,
supervisors, and HR staff; and maintain records of its responses to future
employee complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. EEOC v.
NYU, No. 10-CV-7399 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011).
In
June 2011, a leading provider of advanced office technology and innovative
document imaging products, services and software agreed to pay $125,000 and to
provide substantial affirmative relief to settle a Title VII case alleging race, national
origin, and retaliation claims. The EEOC had charged the company with
subjecting a Black Liberian employee to harassment because of his race and
national origin and two Hispanic employees, one Colombian and the other Puerto
Rican, to harassment based on national origin at one of its work sites in
Greensboro, N.C. The lawsuit further charged that the company suspended and
then fired all three employees for complaining about the harassment. The
alleged unlawful conduct included the site manager commenting to the three
employees that she "hated Puerto Ricans," that "Hispanics are so
stupid," that "Colombians are good for nothing except drugs,"
and that "damn, f-----g Africans . . .ain't worth s--t." In addition
to providing monetary relief, the company agreed to conduct employee training
on its anti-harassment policy and make the policy available to all employees.
The company also will report all harassment complaints of race or national
origin harassment to the EEOC for the next two years.EEOC v. Ricoh Americas
Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00743 (M.D.N.C. settled June 15, 2011).
In
April 2011, a provider of operational support software and back office services
deployed by cable and broadband operators worldwide agreed to pay $60,000 to
settle a race and national origin discrimination lawsuit. In September 2010,
the EEOC had filed the lawsuit alleging that the company fired a Black
Tanzanian network operations analyst because of her race and national origin.
The analyst was terminated allegedly because she left work 30 minutes early to
beat the traffic. However, the employer did not fire a Caucasian employee who
they left two hours early on two different days because he was tired. The
consent decree also includes provisions for equal employment opportunity
training, reporting, and posting of anti-discrimination notices. EEOC v.
Integrated Broadband Services, No. 1:10-03106 (N.D. Ga. settled Apr. 5, 2011).
In
November 2008, a popular pizzeria based in Ferndale, Mich. agreed to pay $20,000
to resolve an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the pizzeria violated federal law when
it told two qualified Black job seekers for waitress positions, one of whom is
African and spoke with an accent, on two separate occasions that it had run out
of applications but hired a White applicant as a waitress later the same day
without requiring her to fill out an application. In the consent decree, the
pizzeria agreed to provide equal employment and hiring opportunities in all
positions and Title VII training for supervisors, managers, and owners. The consent decree also
requires the pizzeria to keep records on information relevant to whether
unlawful practices have been committed and its hiring data, and to submit
reports to the EEOC on this information. EEOC v. Como's of Ferndale, Case No.
2:07-cv-14091 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2008).
In
February 2008, a restaurant agreed to pay $165,000 to resolve a Title VII lawsuit EEOC brought on
behalf of a dining manager who was Arab and Moroccan because he and an Arab
waiter from Tunisia allegedly had been subjected to customer harassment based
on race and national origin and then the manager was fired in retaliation for
opposing the harassment. According to the EEOC's investigation, when the dining
manager complained, the customer turned on him, saying, "If you don't like
it, why don't you go back to your country?" and "I fought two wars to
get rid of people like you!" The parties entered a three-year consent
decree which enjoins the restaurant from engaging in race and national origin
discrimination or retaliation. The restaurant also must revise its
discrimination complaint and investigation policies and disseminate them when
they are approved by the EEOC as well as create a complaint procedure that is
designed to encourage employees to come forward with incidents of racial
discrimination. Additionally, the restaurant must train its employees in
anti-discrimination laws and policies and impose appropriate disciplinary
measures against supervisors who engage in discrimination.EEOC v. Albion River
Inn, No. C-06-5356 SI (N.D. Cal. settled Feb. 27, 2008).
In
December 2007, a convenience store distributor paid $100,000 to resolve an EEOC
lawsuit alleging race, color, and national origin discrimination. EEOC alleged that
a Black employee from West Guinea, Africa was subjected to verbal and physical
harassment and then fired when he complained. The consent decree requires the
company to implement a policy prohibiting race, color, and national origin
harassment. The company also must submit reports to the EEOC demonstrating its
compliance with the consent decree. EEOC v. Eby-Brown, LLC, No.
1:06-CV-1083-SEB-VSS (S.D. Ind. Dec. 20, 2007).
In
November 2007, a high-end suburban Illinois retirement facility agreed to pay
$125,000 to settle a discrimination lawsuit alleging that it terminated its
director of nursing, because of her national origin (Filipino) and race
(Asian). The federal district court approved a two-year consent decree
requiring the facility to provide training regarding anti-discrimination laws
to all its employees; post a notice informing its employees of the consent
decree; report to the EEOC any complaints of discrimination made by its
employees; and take affirmative steps to recruit Asian nurses. EEOC v.
Presbyterian Homes, Case No. 07 C 5443 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2007).
In
March 2007, MBNA-America agreed to pay $147,000 to settle a Title VII lawsuit alleging
discrimination and harassment based on race and national origin. According to
the lawsuit, an Asian Indian employee was subjected to ethnic taunts, such as
being called "dot-head" and "Osama Bin Laden," was
physically attacked by a coworker with a learning disability who believed he
was Osama's brother, and was denied training and promotional opportunities
afforded to his White coworkers. EEOC v. MBNA-America (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2007).
In
December 2006, a New York apple farm agreed to pay $100,000 to Jamaican migrant
workers holding H-2B worker's visas who were allegedly subjected them to
different terms and conditions of employment on the basis of their race
(African-Caribbean), color (Black), and national origin (Jamaican). EEOC
asserted in the lawsuit that the farm harassed Jamaican migrant workers and
forced them to pay rent while permitting non-Jamaicans to live in housing
rent-free in violation of Title VII. EEOC v. Porpiglia Farms, Civil Action
No.06-cv-1124 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006).
In
January 2006, the Commission settled for $200,000 a case against Bally North
America filed on behalf of a former manager of its Honolulu store who was
harassed and fired due to her Asian race and Chinese national origin. EEOC v.
Bally North America, Inc., No. 05-000631 (D. Haw. Jan. 2006).
Race/Pregnancy
In
July 2008, a Florida laundry services company agreed to pay $80,000 and furnish
other remedial relief to settle an EEOC discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC had
charged that a Black Haitian laundry worker at Sodexho Laundry Services, Inc.
lost her job because of her race, national origin and pregnancy. The employee
had developed complications early in her pregnancy, obtained a light duty
assignment, but was not permitted to continue her light duty assignment after
her doctor imposed lifting restrictions even though Hispanic managers routinely
assigned pregnant Hispanic women to light duty work at the same time she was
being denied the same opportunity. EEOC v. Sodexho Laundry Services, Inc. (S.D.
Fla. settled July 2008).
In
October 2006, EEOC obtained a $30,600 settlement in Title VII suit, alleging that a
California-based office equipment supplier had fired an accounts payable
specialist because she was African-American and because she had been pregnant,
when it told her that after she returned from maternity leave, her assignment
was complete and there were no other positions in the accounting department,
permanently placed a non-Black, non-pregnant female who she had trained to
fill-in during her maternity leave in her former position, and a week later
hired a non-Black male to work in another accounting position in the same
department. EEOC v. Taylor Made Digital Systems, Inc., No. C-05-3952 JCS (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 25, 2006).
Race/Religion
In
March 2013, a not-for-profit developer of real estate, offices, and facilities
around Grand Central Terminal in New York City paid $135,000 to settle a
lawsuit filed by EEOC. The EEOC's lawsuit asserted that a non-Rastafarian security
officer threatened to shoot a group of Rastafarian officers. When the
Rastafarians complained, a white security supervisor made light of the physical
threat and implied the Rastafarians were at fault. One Rastafarian security
officer objected to the supervisor's reaction and complained that he heard the
supervisor had referred to the Rastafarians by the "N-word." The
Rastafarian security officer immediately contacted EEOC about the incident. The
EEOC had previously sued the developer for failing to accommodate the religious
beliefs of four Rastafarian employees who needed modifications to its dress
code. That lawsuit was resolved by a 2009 consent decree which prohibited Grand
Central Partnership from retaliating against Rastafarian security officers for
their participation in the lawsuit, but the developer's current conduct
constituted a breach of the earlier consent decree. In addition to the monetary
relief, the new consent decree requires the developer to conduct extensive
training on investigating discrimination complaints, including methods for
proper documentation and unbiased assessment of witness credibility. The decree
also requires developer to regularly report to EEOC about any further
complaints of religious discrimination or retaliation. EEOC v. Grand Central
Partnership, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-09682 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2013).
In
June 2011, a district court ruled that the EEOC could proceed with its two
Title VII cases alleging race, national
origin, and religion discrimination by a meatpacking firm against a class of
Black Somali Muslim workers at its facilities in Greeley, Colo., and Grand
Island, Neb. even though the relevant union local is not a party to the suit.
EEOC alleged that the company failed to accommodate the Muslim workers' religious
beliefs by hindering their prayer breaks and Ramadan observances, and that
supervisors and co-workers harassed the Somali workers by uttering vulgar
epithets and throwing bones, meat, and blood at them. In September 2008, the
company locked out, suspended, and ultimately fired Somali Muslim employees in
Greeley who had walked outside the plant to break their Ramadan fasts, EEOC
alleged. The company claimed the entire case should be dismissed either because
EEOC failed to join the relevant local union, which the company believed was a
necessary party to the litigation, EEOC failed to conciliate the discrimination
charges, and the plaintiff-intervenors failed to exhaust their administrative
remedies. The court rejected the first two arguments, and issued a mixed ruling
on whether the intervenors' claims had been exhausted. EEOC v. JBS USA LLC
d/b/a JBS Swift & Co., No. 10-cv-02103 (D. Colo. June 9, 2011).
In
January 2009, a cocktail lounge agreed to pay $41,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit
alleging that the lounge engaged in race and religious discrimination when it
refused to promote an African American employee who wears a headscarf in
observance of her Muslim faith to be a cocktail server because the owner said
she was looking only for what she termed "hot, White girls." In
accordance with the five-year consent decree, the company is enjoined from
engaging in racial and religious discrimination or retaliation and must
implement and enforce anti-discrimination policies, procedures, and training for
all employees. The consent decree also requires the owner/manager to attend
individual training on EEO issues and the company must report to the EEOC on
its compliance with the consent decree. EEOC v. Starlight Lounge, No.
2:06-cv-03075 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2009).
In
July 2008, an Oregon video company paid $630,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit
alleging that two employees, an African American who was converting to Judaism
and a Hispanic with some Jewish ancestry, were forced to endure repeated racial,
religious, and national origin jokes, slurs and derogatory comments made by
employees and upper management since the beginning of their employment in 2005.
EEOC also charged that the company then engaged in a series of acts designed to
punish the victims for complaining and to ridicule those who corroborated the
complaints. The parties entered a three-year consent decree on July 30, 2008,
which enjoins the company from engaging in racial discrimination or retaliation
and requires the company to institute an equal employment opportunity policy
and distribute this new policy to its employees. The consent decree also
requires four hours of Title VII training for all Video Only employees.EEOC v.
Video Only, No. 3:06-cv-01362 (D. Or. July 30, 2008).
Race/Sex
In
June 2017, the EEOC reversed the Administrative Judge's finding of no
discrimination by summary judgment, which the Department of Homeland Security
(Agency) adopted, regarding Complainant's claim that the Agency discriminated
against her, an African American woman, when it failed to select her for a
promotion. The Commission instead found that summary judgment in favor of
Complainant was appropriate. The Selecting Official stated that she did not
select Complainant for the position because Complainant did not demonstrate
experience relevant to the job description, while the Selectee did demonstrate
relevant experience and received the highest interview score. The record,
however, showed that Complainant specifically listed relevant experience in all
areas identified by the Selecting Official, and that the Selectee's application
failed to establish relevant experience in two areas. In addition, one of the
individuals on the interview panel stated that the Selectee was not completely
qualified for the position. The Agency also appeared to have violated its Merit
Promotion Plan by having a lower-level employee participate in the interview
panel. Therefore, the Commission found that Complainant established that the
Agency's stated reasons for her non-selection were a pretext for race and sex
discrimination. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to offer
Complainant the position or a substantially similar position, and pay her
appropriate back pay, interest, and benefits. Shayna P. v. Dep't of Homeland
Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120141506 (June 2, 2017).
Associational Discrimination
In
February 2011, a family owned restaurant agreed to pay $25,000 to settle an
EEOC case alleging that it violated Title VII when it demoted and
discharged an African-American employee because of his race, and then
discharged a Caucasian employee because of her association with him. The EEOC
complaint stated that the African-American employee was subjected to derogatory
remarks, such as use of the N-word, from both the restaurant's co-owner and
customers. The Caucasian employee also was called derogatory names, such as
"N-lover," when she turned down customers for dates. These customers
also threatened to get her fired because of her association with the
African-American employee. The restaurant also allegedly failed to display
information regarding federal anti-discrimination laws. The consent decree
enjoins the company from engaging in racial discrimination or retaliation and
requires the company to post the EEO Poster in an area visible to all
employees. In addition, the company must also create and post an
anti-discrimination policy in the restaurant, train its employees annually on
Title VII requirements, and submit written reports regarding any future
complaints alleging discrimination to the EEOC. EEOC v. Marvin's Fresh
Farmhouse, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00818 (M.D.N.C. consent decree filed February 24,
2011).
In May
2010, an apartment management company paid $90,000 in monetary relief and
agreed to provide affirmative relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging that
the company violated Title VII by firing a White manager in retaliation for
hiring a Black employee in contravention of a directive by one of the owners to
maintain a "certain look" in the office, which did not include
African Americans. Pursuant to the three-year consent decree, the company is
enjoined from engaging in retaliation or racial discrimination and required to
implement a written anti-discrimination policy. The company also must provide
equal employment opportunity training for all of its employees and post a
remedial notice. EEOC v. Management Solutions, Inc., No. SA09CA0655XR (W.D.
Tex. May 7, 2010).
In
June 2009, a restaurant, which was accused of creating a hostile work
environment for Black, White, and female employees, settled an EEOC lawsuit for
$500,000 and specific relief. According to the lawsuit, White employees were
harassed because of their association with Black coworkers and family members,
including being referred to as "n----r lovers" and "race
traitors" by White managers. Additionally, Black workers were terminated
because of their race, female workers were subjected to a sex-based hostile
work environment, which included male managers making sexual advances and
calling them gender-related epithets such as "b-----s.", and all
complainants suffered retaliation for reporting the discrimination. EEOC v.
Fire Mountain Restaurants LLC, d/b/a Ryan's Family Steakhouse, No.
5:08-cv-00160-TBR (W.D. Ky. June 15, 2009).
In
February 2009, the Sixth Circuit published a favorable decision in a Title VII associational discrimination
case in which the EEOC participated as amicus curiae. According to the lawsuit,
three White workers at the Whirlpool plant in LaVergne, Tennessee, witnessed
numerous instances of racial hostility and slurs directed at their Black
coworkers. Because they maintained friendly relationships with, and engaged in
various acts of advocacy on behalf of, their Black coworkers, they became
targets of various threats and harassment by other White employees who were
responsible for the racial hostility directed against their Black colleagues.
The hostile conduct ranged from "cold shoulder" type behavior to the
use of the term "nigger lover," references to the KKK, and direct
threats on their lives, as well as being told to "stay with their own
kind." The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded the district court's decision granting summary judgment to
the defendant on the White plaintiffs' Title VII claims alleging that they
were subjected to a racially hostile work environment based on their
association with their Black coworkers. Agreeing with the position taken by the
Commission as amicus curiae, the court of appeals held that there is no
prerequisite degree or type of association between two individuals of different
races in order to state a claim for associational discrimination or harassment,
so long as the plaintiff can show that she was discriminated against because of
her association with a person of a different race. The court of appeals also
held that no particular degree or type of advocacy on behalf of individuals of
a different race is required to state an associational discrimination claim
based on this theory, again, so long as a plaintiff can show that she was
discriminated against based on her advocacy on behalf of such individuals.
Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 556 F.3d 502, 515 (6th Cir. 2009).
In
March 2008, a wholesaler book company settled an EEOC lawsuit alleging that it
violated Title VII when the owner verbally harassed a White female employee after he
learned she had biracial children such as stating that they were "too dark
to be hers." The suit also alleged that the owner made sex and race-based
insults to a class of other employees and retaliated against them when the
complained or cooperated with the EEOC's investigation. The settlement included
a donation of $10,000 value of books or 1000 books relevant to the EEOC's
mission, which will be given to a non-profit organization with an after-school
program. EEOC v. Books for Less, C.A. No. 06-4577 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2008).
In
July 2007, EEOC sued a steakhouse restaurant chain for permitting its customers
to harass a White employee because of her association with persons of a
different race. The case settled for $75,000 and injunctive relief which
included mandatory EEO training for managers, supervisors and employees. EEOC
v. Ponderosa Steakhouse, No. 1:06-cv-142-JDT-TAB (S.D. Ind. settled July 3,
2007).
In May
2006, EEOC settled a hostile work environment case against a retail furniture
store chain for $275,000. The store manager allegedly made racially and
sexually offensive remarks to a Black employee, referred to the African Americans
as "you people" and interracial couples as "Oreos" or
"Zebras," and disparaged the employee for marrying a Caucasian man.
EEOC v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp., No. 8:04-cv-T24-TBM (M.D. Fla. May 16, 2006).
In
April 2006, the Commission resolved a race discrimination lawsuit challenging
the termination of a White female employee who worked without incident for a
hotel and conference center until management saw her biracial children. EEOC v.
Jax Inn's/Spindrifter Hotel, No. 3:04-cv-978-J-16-MMH (M.D. Fla. April
2006).[2]
In
January 2004, the Commission affirmed an AJ's finding that complainant was
subjected to associational race discrimination (African-American who associates
with White employees). The record showed that complainant had a close working
relationship with White managers, which the selecting official held against her
because of her race. The record evidence showed that the selecting official's
actions in not choosing complainant for the position were intended to show the
White managers that they were not running the region, and that he had a
philosophy of rewarding African-American employees who aligned themselves with
him instead of those, like complainant, who aligned themselves with White
managers. Wiggins v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 07A30048
(January 22, 2004).
Biracial Discrimination
In
April 2007, a Virginia steel contractor settled for $27,500 a Title VII lawsuit, charging that it
subjected a biracial (Black/White) employee to harassment based on race and
color and then retaliated against him when he complained. EEOC v. Bolling Steel
Co., Civ. Action No. 7:06-000586 (W.D. Va. April 25, 2007).
In
March 2004, the EEOC settled a hostile work environment case in which a
Caucasian-looking employee, who had a White mother and Black father, was
repeatedly subjected to racially offensive comments about Black people after a
White coworker learned she was biracial. When the employee complained, she was
told to "pray about it" or "leave" by the owner; the
employee resigned. The company agreed to pay $45,000 to the biracial employee,
to create a policy on racial harassment, and to train the owner, managers and
employees about how to prevent and address race discrimination in the
workplace. EEOC v. Jefferson Pain & Rehabilitation Center, No. 03-cv-1329
(W.D. Pa. settled March 10, 2004).
Code Words
In
January 2017, Gonnella Baking Co. of Chicago, an established bread and rolls
manufacturer, agreed to pay $30,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging racial
harassment at the company's Aurora, Ill., facility. According to the EEOC's
complaint, Gonnella violated federal law by allegedly failing to respond
adequately to a Black employee's complaints that he endured a pervasive pattern
of disparaging racial comments made by his co-workers. Examples of the
harassing conduct included persistent coded references to black employees as
"you people," as well as offensive statements such as, "Black
people are lazy," and "I better watch my wallet around you." As
part of the consent decree, Gonnella must also provide training to its
employees on civility in the workplace and must institute a policy holding
managers and supervisors responsible for preventing and stopping harassment in
the workplace. EEOC v. Gonnella Baking Co., Civil Action No.
15-cv-4892 (N.D. Ill. consent decree filed Jan. 10, 2017).
In
July 2010, Area Temps, Inc., a northeast Ohio temporary labor agency, agreed to
pay $650,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a
systematic practice of considering and assigning (or rejecting) job applicants
by race, sex, Hispanic national origin and age. The EEOC said that Area Temps
used code words to describe its clients and applicants for discriminatory
purposes, such as "chocolate cupcake" for young African American
women, "hockey player" for young White males, "figure
skater" for White females, "basketball player" for Black males,
and "small hands" for women in general. EEOC v. Area Temps, No.
1:07-cv-02964 (N.D. Ohio consent decree filed July 21, 2010).
In
April 2011, the EEOC affirmed an agency's final decision because the
preponderance of the evidence of record did not establish that discrimination
occurred. Complainant had filed a formal EEO complaint alleging he was
subjected to discriminatory harassment while in Iraq on the basis of his race
(African-American) when, among other things, the word "DAN" was used
by a coworker, which he learned meant "Dumb Ass Nigger," and
management took no action. The evidence of record established, however, that
the "DAN" comment was unlikely used in complainant's presence as he
could not recall who said it and he conceded it was not directed at him. He
also said he did not know what it meant until another employee told him and did
not report the comment to management. Instead, another employee informed
complainant's supervisor about the comment, and the supervisor promptly looked
into the matter. When the supervisor was unable to establish who made the
comment, he convened all the welders and threatened disciplinary action if the
term was used again. There was no evidence that the term or any other racial
epithet was used after this meeting. Battle v. McHugh, 2011 EEOPUB LEXIS 1063,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120092518 (Apr. 27, 2011).
In
July 2010, one of the largest temporary placement agencies in Greater Cleveland
area agreed to pay $650,000 to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit
brought by the EEOC. The EEOC alleged that the temp agency violated federal law
by matching workers with companies' requests for people of a certain race, age,
gender and national origin and illegally profiling applicants according to
their race and other demographic information using code words to describe its
clients and applicants. The code words at issue included "chocolate
cupcake" for young African American women, "hockey player" for a
young White male, "figure skater" for White females, "basketball
player" for Black males, and "small hands" for females in
general. EEOC v. Area Temps, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-2964 (N.D. Ohio July 21, 2010).
In
December 2009, a national restaurant chain settled a racial harassment lawsuit
brought by EEOC for $1.26 million and significant remedial relief in a case
alleging repeated racial harassment of 37 Black workers at the company's Beachwood,
Ohio location. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Bahama Breeze managers
committed numerous and persistent acts of racial harassment against Black
employees, including frequently addressing Black staff with slurs such as
"n….r," "Aunt Jemima," "homeboy," "stupid
n….r," and "you people." Additionally, managers allegedly
imitated what they perceived to be the speech and mannerisms of Black
employees, and denied them breaks while allowing breaks to White employees.
Despite the employees' complaints to management, the alleged race-based
harassment continued. The three-year consent decree resolving the litigation
contains significant injunctive relief requiring Bahama Breeze to update its
EEO policies nationwide, provide anti-discrimination and diversity training to
its managers and employees, and provide written reports regarding
discrimination complaints. EEOC v. GMRI, Inc. d/b/a Bahama Breeze, 1:08-cv-2214
(N.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2009).
In
September 2007, the EEOC filed a Title VII racial harassment case against a food and
beverage distributor, alleging that the company subjected a Black employee to a
racially hostile work environment when a co-worker repeatedly called him
"Cornelius" in reference to an ape character from the movie,
"Planet of the Apes," management officials were aware of the term's
racially derogatory reference to the employee and an ape character from the
movie, but terminated his employment once he objected to the racial harassment.
In May 2009, the district court ruled that the distributor was not liable for
racial harassment or retaliation under Title VII because the employer took
prompt and remedial action once it was notified of the racial slur and because
it terminated the employee misconduct, not because he opposed race
discrimination. EEOC v. Dairy Fresh Foods, Inc., No. 2:07CV14085 (E.D. Mich.
May 29, 2009).
In
August 2007, a San Jose body shop agreed to pay $45,000 to settle a sexual and
racial harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC, in which a male auto body
technician of Chinese and Italian ancestry was taunted daily by his foreman
with sexual comments, racial stereotypes and code words, including calling him
"Bruce Lee." The company also agreed to establish an internal
complaint procedure, disseminate an anti-harassment policy, and train its
workforce to prevent future harassment. EEOC v. Monterey Collision Frame and
Auto Body, Inc., No. 5:06-cv-06032-JF (N.D. Cal. consent decree filed August
30, 2007).
In
August 2007, the Commission settled for $44,000 a lawsuit against a California
medical clinic, alleging that a White supervisor used racial code words, such
as "reggin" ("nigger" spelled backwards), to debase and
intimidate an African American file clerk and then fired her after she
complained. The clinic also agreed to incorporate a zero-tolerance policy
concerning discriminatory harassment and retaliation into its internal EEO and
anti-harassment policies. EEOC v. Robert G. Aptekar, M.D., d/b/a Arthritis
& Orthopedic Medical Clinic, Civ. No. C06-4808 MHP (N.D. Cal. consent
decree filed Aug. 20, 2007).
In
March 2006, the Commission obtained $562,470 in a Title VII lawsuit against the eighth
largest automobile retailer in the U.S. EEOC alleged that shortly after a new
White employee was transferred to serve as the new General Manager (GM), he
engaged in disparate treatment of the Black employee and made racial remarks to
him, such as using "BP time" (Black people time) and remarking that
he'd fired "a bunch of you people already." The new GM also berated
the personnel coordinator for assisting the Black employee with his complaint
and intensified his harassment of him until the employee resigned. The 4-year
consent decree prohibits defendants from engaging in future discrimination
based on race, color, or national origin. EEOC v. Lithia Motors, Inc., d/b/a
Lithia Dodge of Cherry Creek, No. 1:05-cv-01901 (D. Colo. March 8, 2006).
[1] For another human trafficking case, see EEOC
v. Trans Bay Steel, Inc., No. 06-07766 (C.D. Cal. complaint filed 2006) (nearly
$1 million settlement of national origin discrimination case in which 48 Thai
welders paid exorbitant recruitment fees to an agency that kept them in
involuntary servitude, and had their passports confiscated by employers that
forced them to work without pay and threatened them with arrest if they tried
to escape their slave-like, squalid conditions).
[2] As the Sixth Circuit explained: "A
White employee who is discharged because his child is biracial is discriminated
against on the basis of his race, even though the root animus for the
discrimination is a prejudice against the biracial child" because
"the essence of the alleged discrimination . . . is the contrast in
races." Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, & GMC
Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988, 994-95 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding employee stated a
claim under Title VII when he alleged that company owner discriminated against
him after his biracial child visited him at work).
LINKS TO OTHER POSTS:
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2022/06/james-patterson-was-right-about-racism.html
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2022/06/critical-race-theory-debunked-part-2.html
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2022/05/critical-race-theory-debunked-white.html
Biden won, get over it, but can he breakout in Covid era?
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/686085999190798340/6179060851903968774
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/686085999190798340/6179060851903968774
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2020/11/teflon-dons-coating-in-trouble-can-he.html
The Teflon Don may reap benefit from Floyd protest violence and looting
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2020/06/teflon-don-may-see-fulsome-benefits.html
The Teflon Don- Covid-era approval rating may signal November success
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-teflon-don-covid-era-approval.html
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2020/06/teflon-don-may-see-fulsome-benefits.html
The Teflon Don- Covid-era approval rating may signal November success
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-teflon-don-covid-era-approval.html
Would a Biden win be any big loss for Republicans?
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2020/04/would-biden-win-be-any-big-loss-for.html
Tchalla's "Wakanda First" philosophy looks a bit like Donald Trump's "America First" approach
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2019/01/tchallas-wakanda-first-philosophy-looks.html
Significant EEOC Race-Color Cases- Covering Private and Federal Sectors
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2019/01/blog-post.html
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2019/01/blog-post.html
'AsiaRate' Lawsuit against Harvard shows dirty little secret- white quotas used at elite universities
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2018/06/asiarate-lawsuit-against-harvard-shows.html
Some gays find welcome home in the 'alt-right' as nationalist organizations step up recruitment
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2018/05/some-gays-find-welcome-home-in-alt.html
Racial discrimination is alive and kicking in employment, housing and credit markets
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2017/07/racial-discrimination-is-alive-and.html
Sowell 3- new data shows backward tropical evolution? Wealth and Poverty- An International Perspective in Trump era
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2017/07/sowell-3-new-data-shows-backward.html
Sowell 2- Wealth, Poverty and Politics- International Perspective - Trump era to bring these issues into sharper focus?
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2017/07/sowell-2-wealth-poverty-and-politics.html
Sowell- Liberal intellectuals and hard questions about race differences- Trump era may force them to focus?
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2017/07/sowell-liberal-intellectuals-and-hard.html
Trump properties discriminated against black tenants lawsuit finds
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2016/07/trump-properties-discriminated-against.html
Stealing credibility- Dinesh D'souza has prison epiphany- after hanging with the homies- Hallelujah Hilary!
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2016/05/straining-credibility-dinesh-dsouza-has.html
Shame on you, and your guilt too- A review of Shelby Steele's 'Shame'
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2016/05/a-review-wealth-poverty-and-politics.html
Go with the flow 3- more DNA and cranial studies show ancient African migration to, or African presence in ancient Europe
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2016/04/go-with-flow-3-more-dna-and-cranial.html
Go with the flow 2- African gene flow into Europe in various eras
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/11/go-with-flow-2-african-gene-flow-into.html
DNA studies show African movement to Europe from very ancient times
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/09/dna-studies-show-african-movement-to.html
Guilt3- Why the "white privilege industry" is not all there
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/09/guilt3-why-white-privilege-industry-is.html
Guilt2- Media collaborates with guilt mongers - or how to play the white victim card
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/09/guilt2-media-collaborates-with-guilt.html
How Obama plays on white guilt
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/08/how-obama-plays-upon-white-guilt-hilary.html
Blacks oppose free speech- more ramshackle "research" from "the East"..
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/08/blacks-oppose-free-speech-ramshackle.html
Hands off the Confederate flag
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/06/hands-off-confederate-flag.html
Despite much more wealth than blacks, whites collect about the same rate of welfare and are treated more generously
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/06/despite-much-more-wealth-than-blacks.html
African "boat people" ushering in European demographic decline
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/05/african-boat-people-ushering-in.html
The forgotten Holocaust- King Leopold's "Congo Free State" - 10 million victims
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-forgotten-holocaust-10-million-in.html
Are violent minorities taking over California and the West?
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/04/are-violent-minorities-taking-over.html
Presidential hopeful Ben Carson meets and Greeks
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/03/presidential-hopeful-ben-carson-meet.html
Contra "ISIS" partisans, there have been some beneficial effects of Christianity
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/03/contra-isis-partisans-there-are-some.html
The social construction of race, compared to biology- Graves
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-social-construction-of-race_8.html
Why HBD or hereditarianism lacks credibility
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-hbd-or-hereditarianism-lacks.html
Leading Scientists criticize hereditarian claims
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/08/leading-scientists-criticize.html
Thai me down - Thais fall behind genetically related southern Chinese, Tibetans below genetically related East Asians like Koreans and other Chinese
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/08/thai-me-up-thai-me-down.html
Time for liberals to respect "the south" ... in a way of speaking.. the south of Egypt that is..
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/08/time-for-liberals-to-respect-south-in.html
Irony 2: touted High IQ "G-men" cannot reproduce themselves
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/07/irony-2-higher-iqs-correlated-with_25.html
Unz and Sowell: Unz debunking Lynn's IQ and Wealth of Nations. Sowell debunking the Bell Curve
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/07/unz-and-sowell-unz-debunking-lynns-iq.html
Irony 1: touted High IQ types are more homosexual, more atheist, and more liberal (HAL)
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/06/irony-high-iqs-produce-more-atheists.html
Elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action"
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/06/elite-white-universities-discriminate.html
Deteriorating state of white America
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/05/deteriorating-state-of-white-america.html
Racial Cartels (The Affirmative Action Propaganda machine- part 2
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-affirmative-action-propaganda.html
Hereditarian's/HBD's "Great Black Hope"
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/04/blog-post.html
Exploding nonsense: the 10,000 Year Explosion
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/03/exploding-nonsense-review-of-cochran_8.html
We need "rational racism"- Convicted felon Dinesh Dsouza becomes his own test case
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/01/we-need-rational-racism-proponent.html
The Affirmative Action Propaganda Machine- part 1
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-affirmatve-action-propaganda.html
Two rules for being "really" black- no white wimmen, no Republican
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/01/to-be-really-black-you-cant-have-white.html
The Axial age reconsidered
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-axial-age-reconsidered.html
Cannibal seasonings: dark meat on white
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/12/i.html
"Affirmative Action" in the form of court remedies has been around a long time- since the 1930s- benefiting white union workers against discrimination by employers
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/09/affirmative-action-as-term-appears-in.html
Mugged by reality 1: White quotas, special preferences and government jobs
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/mugged-by-reality-1-white-quotas.html
Lightweight enforcement of EEO laws contradicts claims of "flood" of minorities "taking jobs"
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/blog-post.html
Railroaded 3: white violence and intimidation imposed quotas
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/railroaded-3-white-violence-and.html
Railroaded 2: how white quotas and special preferences blockade black progress...
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/railroaded-2-thow-white-quotas-and.html
Railroaded 1: How white affirmative action and white special preferences destroyed black railroad employment...
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/railroaded-how-white-affirmative-action.html
oh did we mention that the primary beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are white..
Affirmative action: primary beneficiaries are white women
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2011/04/affirmative-action-primary.html
7 reasons certain libertarians and right-wingers are wrong about the Civil Right Act
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2012/05/7-reasons-libertarians-may-be-wrong.html
Assorted "Role models" debunked- hypocritical heriditarianism
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2009/11/hbd-debunked-debunking-hypocritical.htmll
Social philosophy of Thomas Sowell
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2011/07/social-philosophy-of-thomas-sowell.html
Additional gene flow data... :)
Go with the flow 2- African gene flow into Europe in various eras
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/11/go-with-flow-2-african-gene-flow-into.html
DNA studies show African movement to Europe from very ancient times
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/09/dna-studies-show-african-movement-to.html
Guilt3- Why the "white privilege industry" is not all there
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/09/guilt3-why-white-privilege-industry-is.html
Guilt2- Media collaborates with guilt mongers - or how to play the white victim card
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/09/guilt2-media-collaborates-with-guilt.html
How Obama plays on white guilt
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/08/how-obama-plays-upon-white-guilt-hilary.html
Blacks oppose free speech- more ramshackle "research" from "the East"..
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/08/blacks-oppose-free-speech-ramshackle.html
Hands off the Confederate flag
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/06/hands-off-confederate-flag.html
Despite much more wealth than blacks, whites collect about the same rate of welfare and are treated more generously
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/06/despite-much-more-wealth-than-blacks.html
African "boat people" ushering in European demographic decline
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/05/african-boat-people-ushering-in.html
The forgotten Holocaust- King Leopold's "Congo Free State" - 10 million victims
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-forgotten-holocaust-10-million-in.html
Are violent minorities taking over California and the West?
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/04/are-violent-minorities-taking-over.html
Presidential hopeful Ben Carson meets and Greeks
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/03/presidential-hopeful-ben-carson-meet.html
Contra "ISIS" partisans, there have been some beneficial effects of Christianity
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/03/contra-isis-partisans-there-are-some.html
The social construction of race, compared to biology- Graves
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-social-construction-of-race_8.html
Why HBD or hereditarianism lacks credibility
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-hbd-or-hereditarianism-lacks.html
Leading Scientists criticize hereditarian claims
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/08/leading-scientists-criticize.html
Thai me down - Thais fall behind genetically related southern Chinese, Tibetans below genetically related East Asians like Koreans and other Chinese
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/08/thai-me-up-thai-me-down.html
Time for liberals to respect "the south" ... in a way of speaking.. the south of Egypt that is..
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/08/time-for-liberals-to-respect-south-in.html
Irony 2: touted High IQ "G-men" cannot reproduce themselves
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/07/irony-2-higher-iqs-correlated-with_25.html
Unz and Sowell: Unz debunking Lynn's IQ and Wealth of Nations. Sowell debunking the Bell Curve
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/07/unz-and-sowell-unz-debunking-lynns-iq.html
Irony 1: touted High IQ types are more homosexual, more atheist, and more liberal (HAL)
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/06/irony-high-iqs-produce-more-atheists.html
Elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action"
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/06/elite-white-universities-discriminate.html
Deteriorating state of white America
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/05/deteriorating-state-of-white-america.html
Racial Cartels (The Affirmative Action Propaganda machine- part 2
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-affirmative-action-propaganda.html
Hereditarian's/HBD's "Great Black Hope"
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/04/blog-post.html
Exploding nonsense: the 10,000 Year Explosion
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/03/exploding-nonsense-review-of-cochran_8.html
We need "rational racism"- Convicted felon Dinesh Dsouza becomes his own test case
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/01/we-need-rational-racism-proponent.html
The Affirmative Action Propaganda Machine- part 1
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-affirmatve-action-propaganda.html
Two rules for being "really" black- no white wimmen, no Republican
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/01/to-be-really-black-you-cant-have-white.html
The Axial age reconsidered
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-axial-age-reconsidered.html
Cannibal seasonings: dark meat on white
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/12/i.html
"Affirmative Action" in the form of court remedies has been around a long time- since the 1930s- benefiting white union workers against discrimination by employers
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/09/affirmative-action-as-term-appears-in.html
Mugged by reality 1: White quotas, special preferences and government jobs
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/mugged-by-reality-1-white-quotas.html
Lightweight enforcement of EEO laws contradicts claims of "flood" of minorities "taking jobs"
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/blog-post.html
Railroaded 3: white violence and intimidation imposed quotas
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/railroaded-3-white-violence-and.html
Railroaded 2: how white quotas and special preferences blockade black progress...
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/railroaded-2-thow-white-quotas-and.html
Railroaded 1: How white affirmative action and white special preferences destroyed black railroad employment...
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/railroaded-how-white-affirmative-action.html
Affirmative action: primary beneficiaries are white women
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2011/04/affirmative-action-primary.html
7 reasons certain libertarians and right-wingers are wrong about the Civil Right Act
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2012/05/7-reasons-libertarians-may-be-wrong.html
https://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2012/12/better-nutrition-led-to-increases-in.html
Assorted "Role models" debunked- hypocritical heriditarianism
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2009/11/hbd-debunked-debunking-hypocritical.htmll
Social philosophy of Thomas Sowell
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2011/07/social-philosophy-of-thomas-sowell.html
Additional gene flow data... :)
Bogus "biodiversity" theories of Kanazawa, Ruston, Lynn debunked
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/09/blog-post.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/09/blog-post.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/04/blog-post_1818.html
In the Blood- debunking "HBD" and Neo-Nazi appropriation of ancient Egypt
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post_29.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post_29.html
early Europeans and middle Easterners looked like Africans. Peoples returning or "backflowing" to Africa would already be looking like Africans
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/05/blog-post_1754.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/05/blog-post_1754.html
Ancient Egypt: one of the world's most advanced civilizations- created by tropical peoples
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/09/blog-post_06.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/09/blog-post_06.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/03/playing-greek-defence-review-of-thornton.html
Quotations from mainstream academic research on the Nile Valley peoples
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/04/blog-post_9251.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/04/blog-post_9251.html
http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/15/basic-database-nile-valley-studies
OTHER LINKS
Race, IQ, and Wealth: What the facts tell us about a taboo subject By Ron Unz
HBD EVOLUTION, BRAIN SIZE AND NATIONAL IQ CLAIMS DEBUNKED
IQ claims and miscellaneous data
Race, IQ, and Wealth: What the facts tell us about a taboo subject By Ron Unz
HBD EVOLUTION, BRAIN SIZE AND NATIONAL IQ CLAIMS DEBUNKED
Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples ... - Jelte Wicherts 2010
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wichertsPAIDrejoinder.pdf
------------------------------------
Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence - WIcherts, Borsboom and Dolan 2010
Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 91-96
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010.pdf
----------------------------- -------------
Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? by JM Wicherts - ?2004
--Dolan, Wicherts et al 2004. Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect. Intelligence 32 (2004) 509-537
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2004.pdf
-------------------------------------------
LYNN AND VANHAVEN'S IQ AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS DEBUNKED
---------------- -------
www.anth.uconn.edu/faculty/mcbrearty/Pdf/McB%20&%20Brooks%202000%20TRTW.pdf
------------------------
Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu... By Larry T. Reynolds, Leonard Lieberman
http://books.google.com/books?id=5DLrgG_MflgC&pg=PA190&dq=r-+k-+selection+races&cd=1#v=onepage&q=r-%20k-%20selection%20races&f=false
--------------------------------
Race and intelligence: separating science from myth. By Jefferson M. Fish. Routledge 2002. See Templeton's detailed article referenced above also inside the book
http://books.google.com/books?id=t9OdPPLIgMAC&pg=PA64&dq=r-+k-+selection+races&cd=7#v=onepage&q=r-%20k-%20selection%20races&f=false
------------------------
http://www.ogiek.org/indepth/what-they-mean.htm
---------------- -------
Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
For summary see: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-02-18/
---------------- -------
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html
 |
-----------------------------------------------------------
--S OY Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/pdf/ng1455.pdf
--S.O.Y. Keita and Rick Kittles. (1997) *The Persistence ofRacial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. AJPA, 99:3
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/WAURRSZQOE.pdf
---------------- -------
HBD RACE EVOLUTION CLAIMS DEBUNKED BY GENETICISTS
Alan Templeton. "The Genetic and Evolutionary significnce oF Human Races." pp 31-56. IN: J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating scinnce from myth.
IQ claims and miscellaneous data
HBD RACE AND INTELLIGENCE CLAIMS DEBUNKED
J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating science from myth.
------------------------------------------
MORE HBD DEBUNKING
-------------------------------- ---------------------
Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
----------------------------------------------
Krimsky, S, Sloan.K (2011) Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture
-------------------------------
Wicherts and Johnson, 2009. Group differences in the heritability of items and test scores
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/04/24/rspb.2009.0238.full
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/coming-apart-can-murrays-down-with.html
"SELECTION FOR"- "SELECT FOR" HDB CLAIMS DEBUNKED- "SELECTION" IS NOT THE ONLY KEY FORCE DRIVING CHANGE
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2012/12/demic-diffusion-notes-and-tropical.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2012/05/7-reasons-libertarians-may-be-wrong.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2012/08/cro-magnons-are-us-debunking-claims.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/03/exploding-nonsense-review-of-cochran_8.html
--Joseph Graves, 2006. What We Know and What We Don’t Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/
J. Kahn (2013) How a Drug Becomes "Ethnic" - Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, v4:1
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=yjhple
------------------------------------ -----------------
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PageProofs-Graves_race.pdf
-------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
other links
Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples ... - Jelte Wicherts 2010
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wichertsPAIDrejoinder.pdf
------------------------------------
Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence - WIcherts, Borsboom and Dolan 2010
Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 91-96
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010.pdf
----------------------------- -------------
Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? by JM Wicherts - ?2004
--Dolan, Wicherts et al 2004. Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect. Intelligence 32 (2004) 509-537
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2004.pdf
-------------------------------------------
LYNN AND VANHAVEN'S IQ AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS DEBUNKED
---------------- -------
www.anth.uconn.edu/faculty/mcbrearty/Pdf/McB%20&%20Brooks%202000%20TRTW.pdf
------------------------
Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu... By Larry T. Reynolds, Leonard Lieberman
http://books.google.com/books?id=5DLrgG_MflgC&pg=PA190&dq=r-+k-+selection+races&cd=1#v=onepage&q=r-%20k-%20selection%20races&f=false
--------------------------------
Race and intelligence: separating science from myth. By Jefferson M. Fish. Routledge 2002. See Templeton's detailed article referenced above also inside the book
http://books.google.com/books?id=t9OdPPLIgMAC&pg=PA64&dq=r-+k-+selection+races&cd=7#v=onepage&q=r-%20k-%20selection%20races&f=false
------------------------
http://www.ogiek.org/indepth/what-they-mean.htm
---------------- -------
Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
For summary see: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-02-18/
---------------- -------
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
--S OY Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/pdf/ng1455.pdf
--S.O.Y. Keita and Rick Kittles. (1997) *The Persistence ofRacial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. AJPA, 99:3
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/WAURRSZQOE.pdf
---------------- -------
HBD RACE EVOLUTION CLAIMS DEBUNKED BY GENETICISTS
Alan Templeton. "The Genetic and Evolutionary significnce oF Human Races." pp 31-56. IN: J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating scinnce from myth.
HBD RACE AND INTELLIGENCE CLAIMS DEBUNKED
J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating science from myth.
------------------------------------------
MORE HBD DEBUNKING
-------------------------------- ---------------------
Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
----------------------------------------------
Krimsky, S, Sloan.K (2011) Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture
-------------------------------
Wicherts and Johnson, 2009. Group differences in the heritability of items and test scores
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/04/24/rspb.2009.0238.full
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/coming-apart-can-murrays-down-with.html
"SELECTION FOR"- "SELECT FOR" HDB CLAIMS DEBUNKED- "SELECTION" IS NOT THE ONLY KEY FORCE DRIVING CHANGE
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2012/12/demic-diffusion-notes-and-tropical.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2012/05/7-reasons-libertarians-may-be-wrong.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2012/08/cro-magnons-are-us-debunking-claims.html
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/03/exploding-nonsense-review-of-cochran_8.html
--Joseph Graves, 2006. What We Know and What We Don’t Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/
J. Kahn (2013) How a Drug Becomes "Ethnic" - Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, v4:1
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=yjhple
------------------------------------ -----------------
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PageProofs-Graves_race.pdf
-
No comments:
Post a Comment