Women's Rights Employment Law Blog

A very timely write up about how the racist policies have been overshadowed by media obsessions with racist speeches. And how dangerous that can be.

Prejudiced policy worse than racist speech
By Ethan Stanislawski

If you’ve been at this school long enough, odds are that you’ve encountered more than a few people who have absolutely no sense of humor when it comes to race. Quote Dave Chappelle or Borat, and that person will not laugh. He or she may even argue that laughing at such jokes is dangerous because there is so much racism and anti-Semitism is still present in our society; laughing at a joke that invokes racial stereotypes only serves to validate those stereotypes.

It’s true that racism is still a glaring problem in this society, but laughing at a Chapelle sketch is the least of our concerns. Over the last 30 years, we’ve seen racial protest in the U.S. switch from addressing growing social problems to addressing isolated incidents of highly public displays of insensitivity. Because we’ve confused prejudice with discrimination, we’ve lost sight of where the real problems lie.

This past year we saw an unusual number of controversies surrounding slurs and comments, be it George Allen’s use of “macaca,” Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic tirade, or Michael Richards’ screaming the N-word during a comedy club meltdown. These stories all got a lot of media coverage, but the most damaging developments in race relations and nation-wide prejudice in this country did not.

In all the talk of the “thumpin’” by Democrats in last November’s election, what got lost was that Michigan voters overwhelmingly decided to overturn affirmative action and that seven more states passed constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. Say what you will about the effectiveness of affirmative action, but it’s one of the only tools we have to correct centuries of violence, segregation and disenfranchisement of African Americans. As for same-sex marriage, the only hope for possible legal equality of gay couples has been nearly irrevocably damaged in over half the states in the Union. Compared to those developments, whatever Michael Richards or Tim Hardaway have to say seems irrelevant.

The emphasis on prejudice has been no less prominent on this campus either. Last school year, we saw a seemingly unending string of racial incidents, between the May house “straight-thuggin’” party, the Hitchcock whiteboard incident, the Muhammad cartoon in Hoover House, and the military recruiting protest in the Reynolds Club. Based on the amount of attention drawn to those incidents, you’d think black students and Jews on this campus hide in their rooms in fear.

If you want to find the real racism on this campus—don’t look within, look outside. You won’t find racism in May House; You’ll find it on the 55 and the Red Line, where this campus’s relationship with the surrounding community can be summarized in uneasy stares, awkward silences, and condescending comments. This university has historically had an absolutely shameful in relationship with the South Side, and most students’ absolute ignorance of the lives of those west of Cottage Grove or south of 61st Street only perpetuates these biases. Which do you think is a more destructive term: “straight-thuggin’” or “those people”?

Continue reading "Prejudiced policy worse than racist speech" »

Women’sEnews has some notable Cheers and Jeers for the week.

If Dr Keroack’s resignation calls for cheers, the fact that 23% rise in pregnancy discrimination complaints indicates the sad state of affairs in the country. Following is the report:

Dr. Eric Keroack, who has been embroiled in controversy since he was appointed as the Health and Human Services Department's chief family planning officer in November, abruptly resigned his post on March 29, Reuters reported.

Keroack's selection by President Bush was met with strong criticism from women's groups over his anti-abortion stance and his previous work with five Massachusetts "crisis pregnancy" centers. Massachusetts state Medicaid officials took an undisclosed action against Keroack earlier in the week, which led to his departure.

In his federal position, Keroack oversaw $283 million in family planning grants used to provide contraception to low-income women, but his opposition to contraception provoked 107 House Democrats and three Republicans to call for his resignation in December.

"It's a good day for women's health," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said. "Keroack was unqualified to run the nation's family planning program. The nation's family planning program should be run by a champion for women's health and safety."

Continue reading "Pregnancy Bias Claims Rise" »

A detailed report on EEOC perspective appears on the National Law Journal.

By Tresa Baldas

The federal government has launched an initiative aimed at cracking down on discriminatory hiring practices in the workplace -- a program that could land unsuspecting employers in court, employment attorneys are warning.

That's what happened to Walgreen Co. this month, lawyers note, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hit the national pharmacy chain with a class action alleging widespread racial bias against thousands of African-American workers. EEOC v. Walgreen Co., No. 07-172, (S.D. Ill.).

The suit came one week after the EEOC announced "E-RACE" (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment), an initiative that will have federal investigators paying much closer attention to how minorities are hired and promoted.

FOCUS ON HIRING

Specifically, the EEOC will focus on hiring decisions that are based on names, arrest and conviction records, employment and personality tests and credit scores -- all of which may disparately impact people of color.

For example, an African-American might be denied a job when an arrest record shows up on a background check or if a credit score turns out to be low. Such criteria, which have a disparate impact on minorities, were not considered in the past. But employers are increasingly considering such factors when hiring, and may unwittingly be denying jobs to large classes of minorities.

Many states have laws that restrict employers from asking about or considering criminal records when hiring. The EEOC holds that if an employer denies a job to an applicant because he or she has a criminal record, it could be considered discrimination if the person is a minority.

The EEOC also has a new specialized task force -- formed last year -- that will handle evidence turned up by E-RACE. Regional attorneys and directors will investigate in more detail and attempt to establish a pattern of discrimination within industries or employers, and present it to headquarters for possible litigation.

"I don't want employers to get the impression that they're some kind of bull's-eye," said EEOC attorney Paula Bruner, special assistant to the EEOC chairwoman. "We want them to be aware they need to step up in terms of their compliance with our laws."

According to the EEOC, race discrimination complaints continue to be the number one complaint made to the EEOC. In 2006, a total of 27,238 such complaints were filed. The EEOC also has seen a substantial increase over the past 15 years in discrimination claims based on color, which have soared from 374 in 1992 to 1,241 in 2006.

Continue reading "EEOC Cracks Down on Discriminatory Hiring Practices" »

New Jersey Police Department has come under fire for having harassed black youths based on their race. And has decided to settle the matter with a big check. The report follows:

Bias suit vs. police settled for $275,000

BY ALESHA WILLIAMS

MANALAPAN — A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey against the Police Department alleging that three black youths were harassed because of their race has been settled for $275,000.

Court records indicate each of the youths will receive about $62,000, with the remainder, nearly $91,000, going to the ACLU for legal services.

But township police maintain there was no wrongdoing. The decision to settle was made by the attorney for the department's insurance company, department attorney Mitchell Ansell said.

The suit was filed in August 2004 on behalf of Sean Anderson, then 12, of Jersey City, Diamond Yorker, then 17, of Manalapan, and Randy Reina, then 18, of Edison.

It charged that on the night of June 21, 2003, Officers Pete Chalfin and Steve Turner
singled the trio out from three white friends while they were all walking on Parkview Way near Buck's Head Park.

According to the complaint, the officers sent the three white youths home, saying, "You don't have to see this," as they proceeded to search and question only the black youths. Reina allegedly was warned not to set foot in Manalapan again. The police ultimately left without charging anyone.

Continue reading "NJ Police settles race case" »

Seattle Times offers a very insightful critique of race relations in the (post)modern America.

We can't address discrimination with policies that ignore color

By Kenneth Einar Himma

Many whites believe governments shouldn't consider race in making any decisions. They typically believe in colorblindness as a state policy, because they think we have solved all race problems since they don't know anyone who still believes the pernicious view that blacks are inferior.

Although attitudes about race have changed for the better, there are still serious problems of race facing us. A government policy of colorblindness not only ignores these problems, but can make them even worse.

A person can consciously believe all races are equal but still have subconscious preferences that cause discrimination. Discrimination can result from racist attitudes; but it can also result from common prejudices and preferences that people don't' even know they have.

It is common for people who reject racist ideologies to unknowingly harbor disparaging stereotypes about race that affect their behavior. This is what happens when someone immediately thinks of a young black man upon hearing about a violent crime, or when a woman reacts to a young black man's presence by clutching her purse tightly.

An important ongoing study shows that most people have automatic preferences for their own race. Project Implicit administers a series of implicit association tests (IAT) that identify and measure unconscious attitudes about persons belonging to various groups. This study shows that more than 80 percent of whites display a subconscious preference for whites over blacks. In a nation in which whites are disproportionately responsible for making hiring decisions for the most lucrative and desirable positions, this results in unfair affirmative action for whites.

Conscious racial prejudice is much more culpable than subconscious preferences. Conscious prejudice is based on false and malicious views about other races, while these subconscious preferences are the result of a common tendency to mistrust difference and gravitate toward similarity in people.

But the prevalence of such preferences among whites results in much injustice — despite the progress made over the past 50 years. Here are just a few examples of continuing race discrimination.

Continue reading "When the policies ignore color" »

How feasible are discriminations caused unconsciously? The following report sheds light:

By H.J. CUMMINS

"Your unconscious made you do it."

That's the new accusation in some big, nationwide workplace-discrimination cases that employers and their lawyers are closely watching.

"Unconscious bias" is an element in two pending class-action lawsuits potentially involving millions of workers, one by women against Wal-Mart, and another by blacks against Walgreens.

It's fundamental to an enforcement effort announced last month by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that focuses on filing "subtle"-discrimination lawsuits and educating employers. It's called Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment (E-RACE).

How can employees prove that prejudices lie deep in their boss' unconscious? How can bosses disprove bias that is by definition invisible to themselves?

It's an evolving tactic, according to several lawyers, whose opinions on unconscious bias range from junk science to an important breakthrough.

Also called "implicit bias," the concept stems from both common sense and growing social-science research that human beings make all kinds of assumptions about other people.

When those assumptions are unconscious and discriminatory, you've got a legal problem, said Joan Williams, an attorney at the Center for WorkLife Law in California who has done a lot of work on gender bias.

One example: When a female lawyer who worked full time was away from her desk, her colleagues assumed that she was in a meeting. When she started working part time and was away from her desk, her colleagues assumed she was at home with her child. And suddenly her job evaluations went bad, Williams said.

"This is the face of discrimination today," Williams said.

The EEOC is using unconscious bias in more race-discrimination challenges, said Assistant General Counsel Carolyn Wheeler in Washington. For example, in a lawsuit filed against Walgreens this month, the commission alleges that the pharmacy chain placed its black employees in poor stores or stores in black neighborhoods.

Like most class-action cases, you start with numbers to show that minority employees are disproportionately found in certain jobs or at certain sites, Wheeler said.

"Just to say everybody has biases will not be that helpful," she said. "How you translate that into employment cases is a very different question, just now being explored by litigators, to see if this can help explain those numbers to courts and to juries."

But arguing unconscious bias can turn into reverse discrimination, said Charles Feuss, an employment attorney at Ford & Harrison in Minneapolis who represents employers.

Take the Wal-Mart lawsuit in California, Feuss said, where 2 million female employees allege sex discrimination. The court allowed testimony that the company's hiring process was prone to subjective decisions by far-flung managers, opening the door to unconscious bias.

That's like accusing all the store managers of discrimination without having to prove anything about each of them or their stores, Feuss said.

"If you can just say that the system in place is inherently biased, you can cobble together an eye-popping class-action case," he said. "Employers need to take a hard look at their decision-making mechanisms, scrutinizing, 'How can we make our decisions objective?' "

Williams, the California attorney, noted that any systems must take into account "leniency bias," because people are known to judge people like themselves more leniently and favorably than others.

In one EEOC study, for example, white New York employers were more likely to hire white job applicants over black applicants - even though only the white applicants came with criminal records.

Williams also preferred the term "unexamined" bias, she said, "because when you use the word 'unconscious' people say, 'How on Earth can I be held accountable for something I'm not even conscious of?' "

In fact, employers can train employees to spot and overcome their previously unexamined biases, Williams said. "You can't control those biases, but you can control whether or not they rule your behavior."

Feuss added that if the EEOC's goal is to get employers' attention, it's working.

"Managers are saying, 'I don't want to be the next Walgreens, or the next Wal-Mart,' " he said.

(Reach H.J. Cummins at workandlife@startribune.com.)

An engineer who specialized in airplanes filed a lawsuit against Boeing, claiming he had to work in a hostile work environment, News 4 WOAI learned Tuesday.

According to the lawsuit, Zuhair Ahmed was working at Boeing here in San Antonio when the September 11th attacks happened in 2001. Ahmed claims after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, his co-workers began making fun of his religion and race.

Ahmed claims in the lawsuit, co-workers and supervisors at Boeing began harassing and discriminating against him because of his African and Sudanese origin. Ahmed is also Muslim, according to the suit.

In March 2005, Ahmed claims in the lawsuit he was fired after a work-related injury.

Boeing officials told News 4 WOAI they cannot comment on the lawsuit because it has not been served yet.

The company has policies in place prohibiting harassment and discrimination, Boeing officials said.

SHANNON LEDGER in Feministing.com offers a case for her being a feminist--

No matter how far I come to think we have evolved as a movement and as a society, somebody is always there to remind me of just how much work there is still to be done. I am a feminist, no doubt about it. And although I'm fairly positive that this aspect of myself naturally shines through upon meeting someone, I still get that sort of dumbfounded facial expression when this realization occurs, which is almost always followed up with that doubtful, snooty question of "Why?" Why am I a feminist.
Are you serious? You actually need an explanation for my fight for equality?
"But, really, what is there to still be fighting for?" That's another one I've grown accustomed to hearing.

So.

Fed up with being knocked off my feminist high-horse, I've decided to explain myself, once and for all. Please keep in mind that my reasoning is not limited to the following; but rather the following is to serve as a little peek into my mind. Hopefully, it will allow you to see through the eyes of your feminist loved one a little more clearly, or perhaps you yourself can relate to my frustrations and that feeling of reciprocating dumbfoundedness when I am asked, "Why are you a feminist?" Well, here it goes folks. Listen and listen hard, because I refuse to respond to this ridiculous question a second time.

Why am I a Feminist!?

**Because I am still being asked this god damned question.
**Because I have to watch my creeps who prowl the streets at night just waiting to act out their hatred.
**Because almost every profession to date has been, and remains to be dominated by men.
**Because the majority of people on welfare are women who have been left to fend for their families by the fathers of the children. All this in a world that's already doing enough to work against them in the first place.
**Because women-made art is still viewed as an exception to the rule, to the perfection of "regular" man-made art.
**Because a woman's right to control her own fucking body is still a heavily debated issue.
**Because, due to the stigmas that our culture has attached to the idea, many women are still hesitant to stand up for their gender---To say, "Yes, I am a woman and I am a feminist."
**Because women's bodies are used as sexual objects to sell everything from beer to automobiles and everything in between.
**Because many men are still threatened by a woman that's got her shit together.
*Because douche is still on the market.
*Because we as women have yet to vanquish the animosity ---the jealousy--- that we are taught to feel towards one another.
*Because one in four college-aged women has some sort of eating disorder.
*Because the history of women and minorities is still only considered on their designated holidays.
*Because the movement has yet to succeed in meeting the needs of women who are not white and middle class.
*Because men in my past have tried to force me into the role of the damsel in distress.
(a feeble attempt mind you. Raaawr!)
*Because I know what it's like to be mistreated on the job solely based upon my being female.
*Because I can count the men I know who consider themselves to be feminist on less than one hand.
*Because most girls I know won't get in the pit at a show for fear of being pummeled to death by big beefy guys who can't be bothered to notice the human face they just stomped on. Fuck you, We're not your fucking coat racks!
*Because not a day goes by where I don't hear a fellow woman being referred to as a "slut," or some other splendidly humiliating name.
*Because I know what it feels like to be the one in four.
*Because it took a tragedy like 9-11 for the world to consider the Taliban a threat to humankind.
*Because we still live in a world of misogyny.
And because society has yet to give me a reason NOT to be.

That is why I am a feminist. Now, any questions?!?!?!?

Iowa Senate has a heartening news.

By Todd Dorman
Lee Newspapers

DES MOINES - A bill prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians in Iowa won Senate approval Monday over the objections of critics who predicted the measure would harm small businesses and open the door to lawsuits.

Backers of the bill, mostly Democrats, pushed it to passage on a 32-17 vote. They portrayed the legislation as a needed strike against discrimination that would also make the state more economically attractive.

The bill, Senate File 427, would add the words "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the Iowa’s Civil Rights Act, which currently bars discrimination based on age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion and disability.

The act specifically targets discrimination tied to employment, housing, public accommodations, education and credit.

"Today, we have the opportunity to reaffirm that in Iowa, job performance is what counts, not what you look like, not what church you attend, not how old you are or who you love," said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, who led debate on the bill.

"It is difficult to convince a talented young person to come to Iowa or stay in Iowa when they can be discriminated against simply because of who they are," Gronstal said.

Exhausting most other options to rationally forbid abortion, a new law actually ridicules basic minimum standards of empathy. And of women’s rights.

That--after hours of debate--the South Carolina House could approve a bill that would mandate women to see a fetal ultrasound before deciding for abortion, speaks for the dismal state of women in the country today. More disappointing is the manner in which the voting passed the bill: 91-23, clearly indicating a sexist dominance in the juridical mainland.

Opponents of the bill decry it as “emotional blackmail”. The reality is worse than that. Such a bill that aims at controlling women’s freedom to choose--in a supervisory manner exploiting institutionally framed legal and ethical terms—actually throttles women’s freedom.

If only the legislators could wake up to realize that women’s freedoms are indeed human freedoms, such a bill would not have been envisaged, let alone passed.

Detailed story follows:

S.C. House: View fetal image prior to abortion Bill would mandate that women see ultrasound before terminating pregnancy By AARON GOULD SHEININ

Women seeking abortions would have to see a fetal ultrasound before the procedure under a bill given key approval in the S.C. House Wednesday.

After three hours of passionate debate, the House voted 91-23 to require women to sign a statement swearing they had seen an ultrasound image of their fetus before getting an abortion.

A half-dozen other states offer ultrasound images to abortion patients, legislative staffers said. But those states do not require abortion patients view them.

Supporters of the measure hope that image will spur more women to forgo abortion. Opponents called the bill “emotional blackmail.”

Third and final approval of the bill in the House could come as early as today, sending the bill to the Senate. There, the proposal faces stiffer opposition; individual senators hold great power to delay or derail legislation.

Abortion foes celebrated Wednesday’s vote.

“It was better than I expected,” Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, said after he and other lawmakers, mostly Republicans, beat back a series of amendments from Democrats.

“Many of the pro-life groups contacted people around the state, and people were praying about this. Hundreds, if not thousands, were praying for it.”

Debate was impassioned.

Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, railed against Republicans for opposing his amendment to exempt victims of rape and incest from the required ultrasound viewing.

Forcing a victim of a crime to see the results is tantamount to forcing her to relive the ordeal, Rutherford said. “You all are doing it to her once again.”

But Delleney said the fetus is no less precious.

Rep. Bob Leach, R-Greenville, accused Rutherford of manufactured indignity. “I’ll be nominating you for actor of the year,” Leach said.

When Rutherford raised his voice in response, Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith, R-Spartanburg, had to quiet both men and remind them to debate with civility.

Rep. Cathy Harvin, D-Clarendon, said the 111 men in the 124-member House never could understand the dueling emotions the issue raises.

“There are 111 of you in this body who will never be able to know the joy a woman experiences when she discovers she is with child,” Harvin said. “There are 111 of you who will never know the horror, that experience, that horror of being impregnated when it’s not something they desire, and then be taken and forced to observe the evidence of the crime.”

Theology, Scripture and wrenching personal stories poured from the podium through much of the debate.

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, quoted the book of Micah to bolster her argument against the bill.

“What does the Lord require of you but to do justice?” Cobb-Hunter quoted. “Love kindness and walk humbly with your God.”

Abortion-rights opponents used the same sentiment later Wednesday to suggest the bill is a mistake. In a news release after the bill passed, the Columbia Christians for Life said the bill “may reduce abortions, but it will also prolong the practice of ‘legalized’ abortion.”

“God’s requirement in the case of murder is justice, not regulation,” the release said.

"Violence against women has yet to receive the priority attention and resources needed at all levels to tackle it with the seriousness and visibility necessary."

UN Secretary-General’s in-depth study on violence against women (2006) (A/61/122/Add.1)

Before we reach another consensus on violence against women, let us examine the existing differences. For, whereas it is far easier (because it is pacifying) to share the knowledge that violence against women continues to exist, it is rather discomforting (because it is agitating) to throw lights on why it is so.

Like every year, academic and administrative reports of all kinds will be generated to commemorate March 8. After all, since we have a non-profit United Nations and we have corporate profiteers, we will eventually need to reach a consensus on issues such as violence against women. And amidst the thousands of articles and hundreds of televised tear-jerkers we will encounter in the coming month, the information overload would have done the damage, if we do not stay alert about few conditions that need addressing:

1. Suspect the Messengers: The kinds of messages about women may be misgivings. Indeed, most channels that provide news about women’s progress and violence are owned and controlled by men. Whereas it is undoubtedly true that many men are truly understanding of their gender positions and many women are too willing to play the assigned roles, it is still wise to suspect the men in the month of IWD message boards.

2. Women’s Rights are Universal Rights: Some will talk about women’s rights as a domain that applies to women only. Indeed, women’s rights are women’s prerogative only as a practice, but everyone’s concern as a scope. Just like they fool us by writing different history books for African-Americans, and the Americans as though American history does not include the minorities, it is highly suspect that women’s rights are not matter of concern for men.

3. Workplace for women vs Women for workplace: Most arguments about women’s rights focus on necessities to prepare the women for the workplace. Its like Amartya Sen saying that the question should not be if democracy is good for a country, but it should be directed towards making the country good for a democracy. Well, frankly speaking, he could be wrong. Just as JFK was while demanding that people give to the country without asking what the country can do for them. That’s the populist tone. The reality is women don’t need to be prepared for workplace. Workplaces need to be geared to serve women.

4. International Woman has a meaning: It means, women identify with each other across different boundaries. This identification has an undertone: that is, they accept the differences across cultures. To be truly international means understanding that there are differences across nations, and hence across women from different nations. There is no place for homogenization of women as one entity. So yes, White women are different from Black women are different from Asian women are different from Latina women are different from Muslim women are different from Hindu women are different from Swahili-speaking women who are different from Greek women. Women have different social locations among themselves, and hence understanding them holds the key. Let no one lead us into an essentialist notion of women’s problem. Different women face oppressions of different nature. The similarity is the most striking: that women are oppressed simply because they are women.

5. Are women human?: MacKinnon’s question is still valid. No amount of cultural excuses (from first world pornography to third world dowry) makes all women full human today. Ruling classes of the world still consider women as accessories to either their power ladder, or to their social justice tokenism. Their domestic adornment or cheap working class market value. Their television anchoring revenue system or their make-up kit industry. Just as Aishwarya Rai cannot be allowed to cry in public because Revlon will probably run into losses, Tamara MaidenName cannot challenge her greedy boss for uneven wages because he will merely retaliate.

International Women’s Day must not be allowed to promote card and gifts companies to indulge in exhibitionism of annual love to the mothers and sisters and wives and friends. It is rather a day to remind all of us in the world that a separate battle is on. This one is a battle of all. A battle that is waged by the true majority of the world, the women. A battle, that addresses the core inconsistencies of capitalism.

In what could be termed as turn of events following the recent uproar over the ownership of N-word, there are evident cases of situational abuses. The reality is that over time, more black people have used this word, but are they going to pay a price for the same? Would it not amount to double jeopardy at a social level? As the debate continues, a black worker stands to be charged. His periodic claims of discriminations against the company has been responded with the company's anti-N-word stance that may end up forcing this worker out. That would be a tragic irony. In the meantime, this report:

N-word, bias focus of trial Lawsuit filed by S.C. plant worker raises questions of racial discrimination By RICK BRUNDRETT

A black employee contends in a federal civil rights lawsuit that he was fired from his job at a Chester County manufacturing plant after complaining about unequal treatment of black workers.

The company says that the employee was fired for using a racial slur in the workplace.

The lawsuit, set for trial this week in U.S. District Court in Columbia, raises a sensitive, widely debated issue: Is it ever appropriate for black people to use the N-word?

The N-word has been regarded as a positive term by some African-Americans, said Adolphus Belk Jr., an assistant professor of political science and African-American studies at Winthrop University.

He noted the late rap artist and social activist Tupac Shakur once changed the spelling of the word, dropping the “E” and “R” and adding an “A,” to create an acronym that stood for “Never ignorant about getting goals accomplished.”

In his lawsuit against Guardian Industries, Eddie Curry, a packer at the Richburg plant, says the reason that he was fired had nothing to do with the N-word.

While a white employee alleged Curry used the word, Curry contends his white supervisors fired him in November 2004 in retaliation for his complaints about how other black employees were treated. In court papers, Curry said he complained at least five times between August and October 2003 about “denied promotions and equal treatment.”

Curry, a Guardian Industries employee for about two years, said he was not allowed to defend himself when he was fired and was not given specifics about the allegation against him.

Curry asserts he is the victim of racial discrimination under the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act. His lawsuit asks for unspecified actual and punitive damages from the company, which makes glass for the building and automotive industries.

Efforts to reach Curry, who lives in Lancaster, or his lawyers with the Gist Law Firm in Columbia for comment were unsuccessful.

Beverly Carroll, a Charlotte attorney representing Guardian Industries, said Curry was fired solely because he violated the company’s anti-harassment policy.

Continue reading "Black worker fired over use of N-word" »

Damned if imprisoned. Doubly damned, if imprisoned. Thats the reality check for the current crisis that posits ethical consequences of incarceration in a country infamously holding records of sorts when it comes to imprisoning the members of minority race.

ZNet has a scholarly and detailed account:

Reverse Reparations: Race, Place, and the Vicious Circle of Mass Incarceration
by Paul Street

“TOWNS PUT DREAMS IN PRISONS”
Sometimes it's the silences that speak the loudest. Consider, for example, a page-one article that appeared in the New York Times in the summer of 2001 under the title "Rural Towns Turn to Prisons to Re-ignite Their Economies." According to this piece, non-metropolitan America was relying like never before on prison construction for jobs and economic development. Formerly, Times reporter Peter Kilborn noted, rural communities had depended for employment and economic development on agriculture, manufacturing, and/or mining. Now, however, they were counting on mass incarceration to deliver the goods. Reporting that “245 prisons sprouted in 212 of the nation’s 2,290 rural counties” during the 1990s, Kilborn quoted the cheerful city manager of Sayre, Oklahoma, which had just opened a prized new maximum-security lockdown. "There's no more recession-proof form of economic development," this local official told Kilborn, than incarceration because "nothing's going to stop crime."

By Kilborn’s account, “prisons have been helping to revive large stretches of rural America. More than a Wal-Mart or a meatpacking plant, state, federal, and private prisons, typically housing 1,000 inmates and providing 300 jobs, can put a town on solid economic footing.” Thanks to money brought in through taxes on prisoners’ telephone calls, sales taxes paid by prisoners and prison staff, and to water, sewer, and landfill fees, Killborn added, Sayre’s city budget increased from $755,000 in 1996 to $1,250,000 in 2001, permitting the town to set aside 15 percent of its revenues for capital improvements. No such savings or investment were possible before the prison, when Sayre “was surviving largely on federal crop support payments to its dwindling farm population” in the wake of the collapse of the state’s oil and gas industry(1).

A different story on the same topic appeared under the title "Ionia Finds Stability in Prisons" in the Detroit News just 12 days before Kilborn’s piece. It told the enlightening tale of how the semi-rural Michigan town of Ionia, located halfway between Lansing and Grand Rapids, had recently become one of the state's fastest growing and "most improved" communities thanks its five thriving penitentiaries together employing 1,584 workers who collectively made $102 million a year. "The state's urban centers dump their felons," the Detroit News reported, "in prison towns and forget about them. Suburbs balk at housing felons, envisioning escapees trampling through their gardens and hiding out in their tool sheds." But "Ionia," the paper noted, "sees things from the other end of the spectrum. The prisons bring, of all things, security." According to Detroit News reporter Francis Donnelly, Ionia’s “penitentiaries, five veritable Great Lakes of cash, provide sustenance to every sector of [Ionia’s] once-dry economy: jobs for residents, customers for stores, revenue for the city government,” including “nearly $1.2 million of the city’s $3.8 million budget” (2).

A February 2001 Chicago Tribune article titled “Towns Put Dreams in Prisons” told a comparable story from Illinois. In “downstate” Hoopeston, Illinois, the Tribune reported, there was “talk of the mothballed canneries that once made this a boom town and whether any of that bustling spirit might return if the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) comes to town.” “You don’t like to think about incarceration,” Hoopeston’s mayor told the Tribune, “but this is an opportunity for Hoopeston. We’ve been plagued by plant closings.” The mayor, the Tribune reported, was lobbying IDOC to permit his town to host a prison so that it could enjoy some of the economic benefits that came to Ina, Illinois when the “Big Muddy” prison was constructed in 1993.

Before “Big Muddy” went up, the Tribune noted, Ina “took in just $17,000 a year in motor fuel tax revenue. Now the figure is more like $72,000. Last year’s municipal budget appropriation was $380,000. More than half of that money is prison revenue. Streets that were paved in chipped gravel and oil for generations soon will all be covered in asphalt. An $850,000 community center that doubles as a gym and computer lab for the school across the street is being paid for with prison money.”

Continue reading "Vicious Circle of Mass Incarceration" »

Johnnie Cochran's law firm has been sued for discrimination:

LOS ANGELES - The law firm founded by the late Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. , who successfully defended O.J. Simpson against murder charges, has been sued for discrimination.

Attorney Shawn Chapman Holley claimed in her lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles County Superior Court that the firm's leaders discriminated against her because she is black and eventually fired her. After Cochran's death in 2005, the firm's leadership was turned over to white men who discriminated against black lawyers and black clients, the lawsuit said.

"In deference to the memory of Johnnie Cochran and in deference to his family, I do not intend to engage in the public airing of our disagreements," Holley said in a statement through her lawyer. "The lawsuit speaks for itself, and this matter will be litigated in the courts."

A call to the Cochran firm in Los Angeles was not immediately returned. Randy H. McMurray, a partner in the firm, told the Los Angeles Times the allegations were not true and that Holley was not fired.

"We probably have the most diverse law firm in California. I don't know what race we would be discriminating against," he said, adding that he and another partner in the Los Angeles office are black.

According to the lawsuit, Holley was appointed to be a liaison between the civil and criminal sides of the firm two years ago. She had worked with Cochran for 17 years.

Holley became concerned about the firm's criminal representation but when she aired these concerns, she was demoted. Five managers of the firm, four of whom "are Caucasian males" approved the demotion, the suit said.

In January 2006, Holley was fired, the suit said.

Cochran founded the firm in 1965. For years, Cochran was famous in Los Angeles for winning a number of cases that led to historic financial settlements and changes in police procedure.

He became nationally known after successfully defending Simpson against charges he murdered his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.