Articles Posted in Race Discrimination

The City of New Haven, Connecticut and the group of white and Hispanic firefighters who brought a reverse race discrimination lawsuit against it have reached a settlement. The firefighters sued New Haven because the city refused to certify the results of a promotional exam in 2004 due to its fear that the exam unlawfully screened out African Americans.

This case was made famous during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals when it ruled against the white and Hispanic firefighters. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overruled the Second Circuit and handed victory to the firefighters.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the firefighters will receive $2 million and 3 years of pension credit. Their attorneys will receive $3 million to pay for their fees and expenses. Federal and state employment discrimination laws require employers who unlawfully discriminate to pay their victims’ attorneys’ fees. This is an important characteristic of these laws. If employers who discriminate did not have to pay their victims’ attorneys’ fees, many victims with meritorious cases would not bring their cases because of the costs associated with them–and discrimination would go unchecked.

On July 26, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a public hearing that addresses the issue of “Arrest and Conviction Records as a Barrier to Employment.” Dating back to the 1980s and early 1990s, the EEOC (which is a federal agency that enforces employment discrimination laws) has warned employers about screening applicants based on arrest and conviction records. It is well-known that law enforcement authorities and courts disproportionately arrest and convict racial minorities. Regardless of whether these arrests and convictions are legitimate, it is unlawful under the Civil Rights Act for employers to use policies that screen out racial minority applicants at a far greater rate than white applicants unless (a) it can demonstrate that it has a valid business justification to use the records to screen applicants and (b) there is not a less discriminatory way to meet the business need that justifies the use of the records. Thus, if an employer uses arrest or conviction records to screen applicants, it may violate the law unless it complies with these conditions. The EEOC’s hearing will address this issue again and that could lead to further guidance for employers on this issue.

On May 13, 2011, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an opinion in Lewis v. City of Chicago. The case will now proceed to the stage where the trial court decides how to remedy Chicago’s discrimination against African Americans who applied for firefighter positions. It is reported that Chicago will have to hire 111 African American firefighters and pay roughly $30 million to the people it discriminated against.

This was a “disparate impact” case. An employer can sometimes violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act even if it engages in a seemingly non-discriminatory practice, such as administering an entrance exam to job applicants. If the entrance exam does not predict which applicants will do the job better than others, and it has a significant disparate impact on women or minorities, the employer cannot use the exam to select applicants. If it does–as Chicago did in this case–it violates Title VII. When an employer uses a test to select applicants that does not measure applicants’ aptitude for the job and that disproportionately screens out minorities, it is in everyone’s interest to find a new test.

The Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) has found reasonable grounds to believe that Hannaford Bros., a part of the multi-national corporation Delhaize Group, unlawfully discriminated against Ernesto Duran. Mr. Duran, a Latino gentleman originally from Puerto Rico, worked for Hannaford for about eight years until Hannaford fired him on May 20, 2009. The MHRC found that Hannaford fired Mr. Duran because of his race, color, and national origin.

According to the MHRC report, the person who got Mr. Duran fired had said to Mr. Duran “why don’t you go back where you came from.” Mr. Duran also claims that his managers disciplined him for alleged misconduct that he did not commit. He claims that white employees committed misconduct similar to what he was accused of and they received no discipline. The MHRC asked Hannaford to provide disciplinary records for employees in Mr. Duran’s department. Prior to the date Mr. Duran filed his complaint with the MHRC, only non-white employees in his department received discipline.

Hannaford has not contested the MHRC Investigator’s finding that it unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Duran. The MHRC has this matter on its consent agenda for its March 7, 2011 meeting. Under its normal procedure, the MHRC will vote and confirm the Investigator’s finding. Mr. Duran and Hannaford will then go through a conciliation process in an effort to settle Mr. Duran’s case. If they do not reach a settlement, the next step would be a lawsuit in court. Mr. Duran is represented by Chad Hansen from the Maine Employee Rights Group.

Restaurant Opportunities Center United, an organization dedicated to advancing the interests of restaurant workers, recently released a study of working conditions that focused on restaurants located in New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, Washington, DC–and Maine. Their research revealed, among other things, that minority restaurant workers disproportionately work the least desirable jobs in restaurants. Consequently, restaurant workers of color earn about $3.70 per hour less than white restaurant workers.

This large disparity in wages could reveal inherent racial discrimination in the restaurant industry. It is illegal under Maine and federal law for a restaurant to steer minority workers towards certain jobs and white workers towards others. It is also illegal for restaurants to pay a worker less because of his race.

If you work in a restaurant and you believe your employer has discriminated against you because of your race, you may not be alone. You should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.

A federal judge in Philadelphia recently decided that a jury will decide this question in a case that pits a former television news anchor against the television station that fired him. Fox 29 fired news anchor Tom Burlington because Mr. Burlington used the n-word during a discussion with his co-workers.

Mr. Burlington, who is white, claims that Fox 29 unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race. He claims that Fox 29 allowed black employees to use the n-word. He believes Fox 29 discriminated against him because of his race. He argues that if he had been black, Fox 29 would not have fired him for his use of the n-word. Fox 29 argues that Mr. Burlington’s comparison between his use of the n-word and black employees’ use of the n-word ignores the fact that his use of the n-word offended some black employees; whereas no one took offense when the black employees used the n-word. Fox 29 also argues that it had the right to fire Mr. Burlington because his use of the n-word caused the station to suffer bad publicity. A jury will have to decide who is right.

This case illustrates why it is a bad idea for any employee to use the n-word at work, no matter what his race is. While you may not intend to offend anyone when you use the word, someone may take offense. If you work in a place where people use the n-word, and you want to do something to change that practice, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer first.