In America, Your Skin Color Doesn’t Define Your Future, Your Choices Do

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fake News !
You want to become heavyweight champion of the world or be an NBA superstar you best be gettin some nap and tint bro.
 
yup. it happens.... just like red lining still happens.... i bet you know what that is don'tcha?
o yeah--not only do they graduate at lower levels--but they commit crime at HIGHER levels = making even LESS qualified for the job---much less
...there are not many blacks at all that qualify for jobs that take brains/non-criminals/etc
plain and simple--FACTS--not hate
What college did you graduate from and when?

We'll get to your criminal history later.
plain facts and common sense --there are a lot less blacks for the jobs and less qualified ----plain and simple
You should watch the movie Hidden Figures, it may give you some insight.
you should wake up to the facts--not some MOVIE!!!!
a MOVIE......?????!!!!! hahahahahahh they are nothing but for entertainment --all bullshit
Katherine Johnson Biography

Portrait of Katherine Johnson
Credits: NASA

Date of Birth: August 26, 1918
Hometown: White Sulphur Springs, WV
Education: B.S., Mathematics and French, West Virginia State College, 1937
Hired by NACA: June 1953
Retired from NASA: 1986
Actress Playing Role in Hidden Figures: Taraji P. Henson

Biography by Margot Lee Shetterly

Being handpicked to be one of three black students to integrate West Virginia’s graduate schools is something that many people would consider one of their life’s most notable moments, but it’s just one of several breakthroughs that have marked Katherine Johnson’s long and remarkable life. Born in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia in 1918, Katherine Johnson’s intense curiosity and brilliance with numbers vaulted her ahead several grades in school. By thirteen, she was attending the high school on the campus of historically black West Virginia State College. At eighteen, she enrolled in the college itself, where she made quick work of the school’s math curriculum and found a mentor in math professor W. W. Schieffelin Claytor, the third African American to earn a PhD in Mathematics. Katherine graduated with highest honors in 1937 and took a job teaching at a black public school in Virginia.

More stories on Katherine Johnson

When West Virginia decided to quietly integrate its graduate schools in 1939, West Virginia State’s president Dr. John W. Davis selected Katherine and two male students as the first black students to be offered spots at the state’s flagship school, West Virginia University. Katherine left her teaching job, and enrolled in the graduate math program. At the end of the first session, however, she decided to leave school to start a family with her husband. She returned to teaching when her three daughters got older, but it wasn’t until 1952 that a relative told her about open positions at the all-black West Area Computing section at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics’ (NACA’s) Langley laboratory, headed by fellow West Virginian Dorothy Vaughan. Katherine and her husband, James Goble, decided to move the family to Newport News to pursue the opportunity, and Katherine began work at Langley in the summer of 1953. Just two weeks into Katherine’s tenure in the office, Dorothy Vaughan assigned her to a project in the Maneuver Loads Branch of the Flight Research Division, and Katherine’s temporary position soon became permanent. She spent the next four years analyzing data from flight test, and worked on the investigation of a plane crash caused by wake turbulence. As she was wrapping up this work her husband died of cancer in December 1956.

The 1957 launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik changed history—and Katherine Johnson’s life. In 1957, Katherine provided some of the math for the 1958 document Notes on Space Technology, a compendium of a series of 1958 lectures given by engineers in the Flight Research Division and the Pilotless Aircraft Research Division (PARD). Engineers from those groups formed the core of the Space Task Group, the NACA’s first official foray into space travel, and Katherine, who had worked with many of them since coming to Langley, “came along with the program” as the NACA became NASA later that year. She did trajectory analysis for Alan Shepard’s May 1961 mission Freedom 7, America’s first human spaceflight. In 1960, she and engineer Ted Skopinski coauthored Determination of Azimuth Angle at Burnout for Placing a Satellite Over a Selected Earth Position, a report laying out the equations describing an orbital spaceflight in which the landing position of the spacecraft is specified. It was the first time a woman in the Flight Research Division had received credit as an author of a research report.

In 1962, as NASA prepared for the orbital mission of John Glenn, Katherine Johnson was called upon to do the work that she would become most known for. The complexity of the orbital flight had required the construction of a worldwide communications network, linking tracking stations around the world to IBM computers in Washington, DC, Cape Canaveral, and Bermuda. The computers had been programmed with the orbital equations that would control the trajectory of the capsule in Glenn’s Friendship 7 mission, from blast off to splashdown, but the astronauts were wary of putting their lives in the care of the electronic calculating machines, which were prone to hiccups and blackouts. As a part of the preflight checklist, Glenn asked engineers to “get the girl”—Katherine Johnson—to run the same numbers through the same equations that had been programmed into the computer, but by hand, on her desktop mechanical calculating machine. “If she says they’re good,’” Katherine Johnson remembers the astronaut saying, “then I’m ready to go.” Glenn’s flight was a success, and marked a turning point in the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union in space.

When asked to name her greatest contribution to space exploration, Katherine Johnson talks about the calculations that helped synch Project Apollo’s Lunar Lander with the moon-orbiting Command and Service Module. She also worked on the Space Shuttle and the Earth Resources Satellite, and authored or coauthored 26 research reports. She retired in 1986, after thirty-three years at Langley. “I loved going to work every single day,” she says. In 2015, at age 97, Katherine Johnson added another extraordinary achievement to her long list: President Obama awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian honor.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/katherine-johnson-biography
 
Most apply for jobs online today and the applicant cannot be asked what race, ethnicity, or national origin, so, someone is fudging here.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from asking about ethnicity, race and national origin.
No it does not. Title VII forbids discrimination and/or work classification based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But nothing forbids asking about it. Applications for Federal government jobs certainly ask about race and sex, with the caveat that the information will only be used for statistical purposes.

I believe many private companies have similar disclaimers.

I stand corrected, but if they do, it can be used against them-

RECRUITMENT AND HIRING PRACTICES
Can an employer ask about an applicant's race on an application form?

Employers may legitimately need information about their employees or applicants race for affirmative action purposes and/or to track applicant flow. One way to obtain racial information and simultaneously guard against discriminatory selection is for employers to use separate forms or otherwise keep the information about an applicant's race separate from the application. In that way, the employer can capture the information it needs but ensure that it is not used in the selection decision.

Unless the information is for such a legitimate purpose, pre-employment questions about race can suggest that race will be used as a basis for making selection decisions. If the information is used in the selection decision and members of particular racial groups are excluded from employment, the inquiries can constitute evidence of discrimination.
 
yup. it happens.... just like red lining still happens.... i bet you know what that is don'tcha?
o yeah--not only do they graduate at lower levels--but they commit crime at HIGHER levels = making even LESS qualified for the job---much less
...there are not many blacks at all that qualify for jobs that take brains/non-criminals/etc
plain and simple--FACTS--not hate
What college did you graduate from and when?

We'll get to your criminal history later.
plain facts and common sense --there are a lot less blacks for the jobs and less qualified ----plain and simple
You should watch the movie Hidden Figures, it may give you some insight.
you should wake up to the facts--not some MOVIE!!!!
a MOVIE......?????!!!!! hahahahahahh they are nothing but for entertainment --all bullshit
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Dorothy Vaughan Biography

Portrait of Dorothy Vaughan
Credits: Courtesy Vaughan Family

Date of Birth: September 20, 1910
Hometown: Kansas City, MO
Education: B.A., Mathematics, Wilberforce University, 1929
Hired by NACA: December 1943
Retired from NASA: 1971
Date of Death: November 10, 2008
Actress Playing Role in Hidden Figures: Octavia Spencer

In an era when NASA is led by an African American man (Administrator Charles Bolden) and a woman (Deputy Administrator Dava Newman), and when recent NASA Center Directors come from a variety of backgrounds, it's easy to overlook the people who paved the way for the agency's current robust and diverse workforce and leadership. Those who speak of NASA's pioneers rarely mention the name Dorothy Vaughan, but as the head of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics’ (NACA’s) segregated West Area Computing Unit from 1949 until 1958, Vaughan was both a respected mathematician and NASA's first African-American manager.

Dorothy Vaughan came to the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in 1943, during the height of World War II, leaving her position as the math teacher at Robert Russa Moton High School in Farmville, VA to take what she believed would be a temporary war job. Two years after President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 into law, prohibiting racial, religious and ethnic discrimination in the country's defense industry, the Laboratory began hiring black women to meet the skyrocketing demand for processing aeronautical research data. Urgency and twenty-four hour shifts prevailed-- as did Jim Crow laws which required newly-hired "colored" mathematicians to work separately from their white female counterparts. Dorothy Vaughan was assigned to the segregated "West Area Computing" unit, an all-black group of female mathematicians, who were originally required to use separate dining and bathroom facilities. Over time, both individually and as a group, the West Computers distinguished themselves with contributions to virtually every area of research at Langley.

The group's original section heads (first Margery Hannah, then Blanche Sponsler) were white. In 1949, Dorothy Vaughan was promoted to lead the group, making her the NACA's first black supervisor, and one of the NACA's few female supervisors. The Section Head title gave Dorothy rare Laboratory-wide visibility, and she collaborated with other well-known (white) computers like Vera Huckel and Sara Bullock on projects such as compiling a handbook for algebraic methods for calculating machines. Vaughan was a steadfast advocate for the women of West Computing, and even intervened on behalf of white computers in other groups who deserved promotions or pay raises. Engineers valued her recommendations as to the best "girls" for a particular project, and for challenging assignments they often requested that she personally handle the work.

Dorothy Vaughan helmed West Computing for nearly a decade. In 1958, when the NACA made the transition to NASA, segregated facilities, including the West Computing office, were abolished. Dorothy Vaughan and many of the former West Computers joined the new Analysis and Computation Division (ACD), a racially and gender-integrated group on the frontier of electronic computing. Dorothy Vaughan became an expert FORTRAN programmer, and she also contributed to the Scout Launch Vehicle Program.

Dorothy Vaughan retired from NASA in 1971. She sought, but never received, another management position at Langley. Her legacy lives on in the successful careers of notable West Computing alumni, including Mary Jackson, Katherine Johnson, Eunice Smith and Kathryn Peddrew, and the achievements of second-generation mathematicians and engineers such as Dr. Christine Darden.
Dorothy Vaughan Biography
 
yup. it happens.... just like red lining still happens.... i bet you know what that is don'tcha?
o yeah--not only do they graduate at lower levels--but they commit crime at HIGHER levels = making even LESS qualified for the job---much less
...there are not many blacks at all that qualify for jobs that take brains/non-criminals/etc
plain and simple--FACTS--not hate
What college did you graduate from and when?

We'll get to your criminal history later.
plain facts and common sense --there are a lot less blacks for the jobs and less qualified ----plain and simple
You should watch the movie Hidden Figures, it may give you some insight.
you should wake up to the facts--not some MOVIE!!!!
a MOVIE......?????!!!!! hahahahahahh they are nothing but for entertainment --all bullshit
No need to watch the movie, I've condensed into down into their NASA profiles (FACT)
Mary Jackson Biography

Mary Jackson grew up in Hampton, Virginia. After graduating with highest honors from high school, she then continued her education at Hampton Institute, earning her Bachelor of Science Degrees in Mathematics and Physical Science. Following graduation, Mary taught in Maryland prior to joining NASA. Mary retired from the NASA Langley Research Center in 1985 as an Aeronautical Engineer after 34 years.
Credits: NASA

Date of Birth: April 9, 1921
Hometown: Hampton, VA
Education: B.S., Mathematics and Physical Science, Hampton Institute, 1942
Hired by NACA: April 1951
Retired from NASA: 1985
Date of Death: February 11, 2005
Actress Playing Role in Hidden Figures: Janelle Monáe

For Mary Winston Jackson, a love of science and a commitment to improving the lives of the people around her were one and the same. In the 1970s, she helped the youngsters in the science club at Hampton’s King Street Community center build their own wind tunnel and use it to conduct experiments. “We have to do something like this to get them interested in science," she said in an article for the local newspaper. "Sometimes they are not aware of the number of black scientists, and don't even know of the career opportunities until it is too late."

Mary’s own path to an engineering career at the NASA Langley Research Center was far from direct. A native of Hampton, Virginia, she graduated from Hampton Institute in 1942 with a dual degree in Math and Physical Sciences, and accepted a job as a math teacher at a black school in Calvert County, Maryland. Hampton had become one of the nerve centers of the World War II home front effort, and after a year of teaching, Mary returned home, finding a position as the receptionist at the King Street USO Club, which served the city’s black population. It would take three more career changes—a post as a bookkeeper in Hampton Institute’s Health Department, a stint at home following the birth of her son, Levi, and a job as an Army secretary at Fort Monroe—before Mary landed at the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory’s segregated West Area Computing section in 1951, reporting to the group’s supervisor Dorothy Vaughan.

After two years in the computing pool, Mary Jackson received an offer to work for engineer Kazimierz Czarnecki in the 4-foot by 4-foot Supersonic Pressure Tunnel, a 60,000 horsepower wind tunnel capable of blasting models with winds approaching twice the speed of sound. Czarnecki offered Mary hands-on experience conducting experiments in the facility, and eventually suggested that she enter a training program that would allow her to earn a promotion from mathematician to engineer. Trainees had to take graduate level math and physics in after-work courses managed by the University of Virginia. Because the classes were held at then-segregated Hampton High School, however, Mary needed special permission from the City of Hampton to join her white peers in the classroom. Never one to flinch in the face of a challenge, Mary completed the courses, earned the promotion, and in 1958 became NASA’s first black female engineer. That same year, she co-authored her first report, Effects of Nose Angle and Mach Number on Transition on Cones at Supersonic Speeds.

Mary Jackson began her engineering career in an era in which female engineers of any background were a rarity; in the 1950s, she very well may have been the only black female aeronautical engineer in the field. For nearly two decades she enjoyed a productive engineering career, authoring or co-authoring a dozen or so research reports, most focused on the behavior of the boundary layer of air around airplanes. As the years progressed, the promotions slowed, and she became frustrated at her inability to break into management-level grades. In 1979, seeing that the glass ceiling was the rule rather than the exception for the center’s female professionals, she made a final, dramatic career change, leaving engineering and taking a demotion to fill the open position of Langley’s Federal Women’s Program Manager. There, she worked hard to impact the hiring and promotion of the next generation of all of NASA’s female mathematicians, engineers and scientists.

Mary retired from Langley in 1985. Among her many honors were an Apollo Group Achievement Award, and being named Langley’s Volunteer of the Year in 1976. She served as the chair of one of the center’s annual United Way campaigns, was a Girl Scout troop leader for more than three decades, and a member of the National Technical Association (the oldest African American technical organization in the United States). She and her husband Levi had an open-door policy for young Langley recruits trying to gain their footing in a new town and a new career. A 1976 Langley Researcher profile might have done the best job capturing Mary Jackson’s spirit and character, calling her a “gentlelady, wife and mother, humanitarian and scientist.” For Mary Jackson, science and service went hand in hand.

Biography by Margot Lee Shetterly
Mary Jackson Biography
 
o yeah--not only do they graduate at lower levels--but they commit crime at HIGHER levels = making even LESS qualified for the job---much less
...there are not many blacks at all that qualify for jobs that take brains/non-criminals/etc
plain and simple--FACTS--not hate
What college did you graduate from and when?

We'll get to your criminal history later.
plain facts and common sense --there are a lot less blacks for the jobs and less qualified ----plain and simple
You should watch the movie Hidden Figures, it may give you some insight.
you should wake up to the facts--not some MOVIE!!!!
a MOVIE......?????!!!!! hahahahahahh they are nothing but for entertainment --all bullshit
Mary Jackson Biography

Mary Jackson grew up in Hampton, Virginia. After graduating with highest honors from high school, she then continued her education at Hampton Institute, earning her Bachelor of Science Degrees in Mathematics and Physical Science. Following graduation, Mary taught in Maryland prior to joining NASA. Mary retired from the NASA Langley Research Center in 1985 as an Aeronautical Engineer after 34 years.
Credits: NASA

Date of Birth: April 9, 1921
Hometown: Hampton, VA
Education: B.S., Mathematics and Physical Science, Hampton Institute, 1942
Hired by NACA: April 1951
Retired from NASA: 1985
Date of Death: February 11, 2005
Actress Playing Role in Hidden Figures: Janelle Monáe

For Mary Winston Jackson, a love of science and a commitment to improving the lives of the people around her were one and the same. In the 1970s, she helped the youngsters in the science club at Hampton’s King Street Community center build their own wind tunnel and use it to conduct experiments. “We have to do something like this to get them interested in science," she said in an article for the local newspaper. "Sometimes they are not aware of the number of black scientists, and don't even know of the career opportunities until it is too late."

Mary’s own path to an engineering career at the NASA Langley Research Center was far from direct. A native of Hampton, Virginia, she graduated from Hampton Institute in 1942 with a dual degree in Math and Physical Sciences, and accepted a job as a math teacher at a black school in Calvert County, Maryland. Hampton had become one of the nerve centers of the World War II home front effort, and after a year of teaching, Mary returned home, finding a position as the receptionist at the King Street USO Club, which served the city’s black population. It would take three more career changes—a post as a bookkeeper in Hampton Institute’s Health Department, a stint at home following the birth of her son, Levi, and a job as an Army secretary at Fort Monroe—before Mary landed at the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory’s segregated West Area Computing section in 1951, reporting to the group’s supervisor Dorothy Vaughan.

After two years in the computing pool, Mary Jackson received an offer to work for engineer Kazimierz Czarnecki in the 4-foot by 4-foot Supersonic Pressure Tunnel, a 60,000 horsepower wind tunnel capable of blasting models with winds approaching twice the speed of sound. Czarnecki offered Mary hands-on experience conducting experiments in the facility, and eventually suggested that she enter a training program that would allow her to earn a promotion from mathematician to engineer. Trainees had to take graduate level math and physics in after-work courses managed by the University of Virginia. Because the classes were held at then-segregated Hampton High School, however, Mary needed special permission from the City of Hampton to join her white peers in the classroom. Never one to flinch in the face of a challenge, Mary completed the courses, earned the promotion, and in 1958 became NASA’s first black female engineer. That same year, she co-authored her first report, Effects of Nose Angle and Mach Number on Transition on Cones at Supersonic Speeds.

Mary Jackson began her engineering career in an era in which female engineers of any background were a rarity; in the 1950s, she very well may have been the only black female aeronautical engineer in the field. For nearly two decades she enjoyed a productive engineering career, authoring or co-authoring a dozen or so research reports, most focused on the behavior of the boundary layer of air around airplanes. As the years progressed, the promotions slowed, and she became frustrated at her inability to break into management-level grades. In 1979, seeing that the glass ceiling was the rule rather than the exception for the center’s female professionals, she made a final, dramatic career change, leaving engineering and taking a demotion to fill the open position of Langley’s Federal Women’s Program Manager. There, she worked hard to impact the hiring and promotion of the next generation of all of NASA’s female mathematicians, engineers and scientists.

Mary retired from Langley in 1985. Among her many honors were an Apollo Group Achievement Award, and being named Langley’s Volunteer of the Year in 1976. She served as the chair of one of the center’s annual United Way campaigns, was a Girl Scout troop leader for more than three decades, and a member of the National Technical Association (the oldest African American technical organization in the United States). She and her husband Levi had an open-door policy for young Langley recruits trying to gain their footing in a new town and a new career. A 1976 Langley Researcher profile might have done the best job capturing Mary Jackson’s spirit and character, calling her a “gentlelady, wife and mother, humanitarian and scientist.” For Mary Jackson, science and service went hand in hand.

Biography by Margot Lee Shetterly
Mary Jackson Biography
and??
 
I stand corrected, but if they do, it can be used against them-
Absolutely, you know that if a racist is allowed to get his/her hands on EEO information (protected class info) even if it's only gathered for statistical purposes, they will, can and have used it to the detriment of protected class applicants.

It is naive to believe otherwise, in my opinion.
 
Most apply for jobs online today and the applicant cannot be asked what race, ethnicity, or national origin, so, someone is fudging here.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from asking about ethnicity, race and national origin.



uh, no. certainly not yet ...by any means.

May 2017
Minorities Who 'Whiten' Job Resumes Get More Interviews
by Dina Gerdeman
African American and Asian job applicants who mask their race on resumes seem to have better success getting job interviews, according to research by Katherine DeCelles and colleagues.

Minority job applicants are “whitening” their resumes by deleting references to their race with the hope of boosting their shot at jobs, and research shows the strategy is paying off.

In fact, companies are more than twice as likely to call minority applicants for interviews if they submit whitened resumes than candidates who reveal their race—and this discriminatory practice is just as strong for businesses that claim to value diversity as those that don’t.

These research findings should provide a startling wakeup call for business executives: A bias against minorities runs rampant through the resume screening process at companies throughout the United States, says Katherine A. DeCelles, the James M. Collins Visiting Associate Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School.

“Discrimination still exists in the workplace,” DeCelles says. “Organizations now have an opportunity to recognize this issue as a pinch point, so they can do something about it.”

DeCelles co-authored a September 2016 article about the two-year study in Administrative Science Quarterly called Whitened Resumes: Race and Self-Presentation in the Labor Market with Sonia K. Kang, assistant professor of organizational behavior and human resource management at the University of Toronto Mississauga; András Tilcsik, assistant professor of strategic management at the University of Toronto; and Sora Jun, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University.

Minorities Who 'Whiten' Job Resumes Get More Interviews

& there are more studies going back for years indicating the same results.

They're referring to volunteered information not amswers to questions. You know, such as saying they belong to an professional assosiation, but not mentioning te "Young Asian Guild" version of the assocition.
 
Most apply for jobs online today and the applicant cannot be asked what race, ethnicity, or national origin, so, someone is fudging here.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from asking about ethnicity, race and national origin.
No it does not. Title VII forbids discrimination and/or work classification based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But nothing forbids asking about it. Applications for Federal government jobs certainly ask about race and sex, with the caveat that the information will only be used for statistical purposes.

I believe many private companies have similar disclaimers.

I stand corrected, but if they do, it can be used against them-

RECRUITMENT AND HIRING PRACTICES
Can an employer ask about an applicant's race on an application form?

Employers may legitimately need information about their employees or applicants race for affirmative action purposes and/or to track applicant flow. One way to obtain racial information and simultaneously guard against discriminatory selection is for employers to use separate forms or otherwise keep the information about an applicant's race separate from the application. In that way, the employer can capture the information it needs but ensure that it is not used in the selection decision.

Unless the information is for such a legitimate purpose, pre-employment questions about race can suggest that race will be used as a basis for making selection decisions. If the information is used in the selection decision and members of particular racial groups are excluded from employment, the inquiries can constitute evidence of discrimination.
Yeah, a lot of people believe there are illegal questions, but there are not (well except those that would violate HIPPA). But there are many questions that you open yourself up to a lawsuit if any kind of claim of discrimination is made if it looks like discrimination.
 
This is a very simplistic view of racism in America. When the Tuskegee Airmen returned to the States at the end of the war during the late 1940s many of them sought employment with the commercial airlines. The airlines flat out refused to hire African American pilots and only relented due to a lawsuit that compel them to cease their discriminatory employment practices. This was right around the time that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in employment based on race and other protected class characteristics.

What choices did they make that prevented them from pursuing their dream careers?
Newsflash: it’s not 1845 nor 1945.

Newsflash: It's 2019 and the same thing happens.
 
This is a very simplistic view of racism in America. When the Tuskegee Airmen returned to the States at the end of the war during the late 1940s many of them sought employment with the commercial airlines. The airlines flat out refused to hire African American pilots and only relented due to a lawsuit that compel them to cease their discriminatory employment practices. This was right around the time that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in employment based on race and other protected class characteristics.

What choices did they make that prevented them from pursuing their dream careers?
Newsflash: it’s not 1845 nor 1945.

Newsflash: It's 2019 and the same thing happens.
Yeah, sure.
Name one case.
One.
Uno.

GAME OVER
 
A group of whites in this forum have a lot to say about blacks and racism. None of it is based on actual experience just what they want to gaslight others into believing. The same person posting the OP is a virulent racist who wouldn't give a person of color a chance unless they were the last person on earth.

This fool is providing a classic example of aversive racism. To him racism is not the problem, personal choice is. It's a matter of culture.

Given that even the SCOTUS has stated how institutional racism exists, there is no debate to be had relative to this matter. The color of a persons skin can, and often does, determine a persons future. No amount of threads created by stormfront troopers changes this PROVEN fact.
 
This is a very simplistic view of racism in America. When the Tuskegee Airmen returned to the States at the end of the war during the late 1940s many of them sought employment with the commercial airlines. The airlines flat out refused to hire African American pilots and only relented due to a lawsuit that compel them to cease their discriminatory employment practices. This was right around the time that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in employment based on race and other protected class characteristics.

What choices did they make that prevented them from pursuing their dream careers?
Newsflash: it’s not 1845 nor 1945.

Newsflash: It's 2019 and the same thing happens.
Yeah, sure.
Name one case.
One.
Uno.

GAME OVER

You go on over to the EEOC website and find out for yourself. I am not going to argue with your white ass about it. It still goes on.

GAME OVER .
 
This is a very simplistic view of racism in America. When the Tuskegee Airmen returned to the States at the end of the war during the late 1940s many of them sought employment with the commercial airlines. The airlines flat out refused to hire African American pilots and only relented due to a lawsuit that compel them to cease their discriminatory employment practices. This was right around the time that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in employment based on race and other protected class characteristics.

What choices did they make that prevented them from pursuing their dream careers?
Newsflash: it’s not 1845 nor 1945.

Newsflash: It's 2019 and the same thing happens.
Yeah, sure.
Name one case.
One.
Uno.

GAME OVER

You go on over to the EEOC website and find out for yourself. I am not going to argue with your white ass about it. It still goes on.

GAME OVER .
I asked for just one proven case and you’re empty handed.

GAME OVER
 
Which is that they don’t mention their race? Why would they since it isn’t legal to be on the app to begin with.
You might note some of the research was in Canada. Maybe they ask there, but we can’t, thus it would not pertain to the US.
Ffs! It's not about 'asking'. You really can't read.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
This is a very simplistic view of racism in America. When the Tuskegee Airmen returned to the States at the end of the war during the late 1940s many of them sought employment with the commercial airlines. The airlines flat out refused to hire African American pilots and only relented due to a lawsuit that compel them to cease their discriminatory employment practices. This was right around the time that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in employment based on race and other protected class characteristics.

What choices did they make that prevented them from pursuing their dream careers?
Newsflash: it’s not 1845 nor 1945.

Newsflash: It's 2019 and the same thing happens.
Yeah, sure.
Name one case.
One.
Uno.

GAME OVER

You go on over to the EEOC website and find out for yourself. I am not going to argue with your white ass about it. It still goes on.

GAME OVER .
I asked for just one proven case and you’re empty handed.

GAME OVER

And I don't have to prove something everybody else knows happens. And you know it happens. Because you do it. Gaslighting doesn't work here. So go look it up.

GAME OVER.
 
Last edited:
This is a very simplistic view of racism in America. When the Tuskegee Airmen returned to the States at the end of the war during the late 1940s many of them sought employment with the commercial airlines. The airlines flat out refused to hire African American pilots and only relented due to a lawsuit that compel them to cease their discriminatory employment practices. This was right around the time that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in employment based on race and other protected class characteristics.

What choices did they make that prevented them from pursuing their dream careers?
Newsflash: it’s not 1845 nor 1945.

Newsflash: It's 2019 and the same thing happens.
Yeah, sure.
Name one case.
One.
Uno.

GAME OVER
Here's a few, and before you point out that they're not from 2019, they don't publish for the current year until after the year is over. The previous 12 months should suffice, no?

E-RACE AND OTHER EEOC INITIATIVES
Systemic
  • 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).
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).
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 Hurley Medical Center).

  • 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).
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).
Terms and Conditions
  • 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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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 torenew 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).
  • 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.
  • 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 ******," "wetback" and "****** 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).
  • 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).
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. <em>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 ******," 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).

[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).

Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases
 
o yeah--not only do they graduate at lower levels--but they commit crime at HIGHER levels = making even LESS qualified for the job---much less
...there are not many blacks at all that qualify for jobs that take brains/non-criminals/etc
plain and simple--FACTS--not hate
What college did you graduate from and when?

We'll get to your criminal history later.
plain facts and common sense --there are a lot less blacks for the jobs and less qualified ----plain and simple
You should watch the movie Hidden Figures, it may give you some insight.
you should wake up to the facts--not some MOVIE!!!!
a MOVIE......?????!!!!! hahahahahahh they are nothing but for entertainment --all bullshit
No need to watch the movie, I've condensed into down into their NASA profiles (FACT)
Mary Jackson Biography

Mary Jackson grew up in Hampton, Virginia. After graduating with highest honors from high school, she then continued her education at Hampton Institute, earning her Bachelor of Science Degrees in Mathematics and Physical Science. Following graduation, Mary taught in Maryland prior to joining NASA. Mary retired from the NASA Langley Research Center in 1985 as an Aeronautical Engineer after 34 years.
Credits: NASA

Date of Birth: April 9, 1921
Hometown: Hampton, VA
Education: B.S., Mathematics and Physical Science, Hampton Institute, 1942
Hired by NACA: April 1951
Retired from NASA: 1985
Date of Death: February 11, 2005
Actress Playing Role in Hidden Figures: Janelle Monáe

For Mary Winston Jackson, a love of science and a commitment to improving the lives of the people around her were one and the same. In the 1970s, she helped the youngsters in the science club at Hampton’s King Street Community center build their own wind tunnel and use it to conduct experiments. “We have to do something like this to get them interested in science," she said in an article for the local newspaper. "Sometimes they are not aware of the number of black scientists, and don't even know of the career opportunities until it is too late."

Mary’s own path to an engineering career at the NASA Langley Research Center was far from direct. A native of Hampton, Virginia, she graduated from Hampton Institute in 1942 with a dual degree in Math and Physical Sciences, and accepted a job as a math teacher at a black school in Calvert County, Maryland. Hampton had become one of the nerve centers of the World War II home front effort, and after a year of teaching, Mary returned home, finding a position as the receptionist at the King Street USO Club, which served the city’s black population. It would take three more career changes—a post as a bookkeeper in Hampton Institute’s Health Department, a stint at home following the birth of her son, Levi, and a job as an Army secretary at Fort Monroe—before Mary landed at the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory’s segregated West Area Computing section in 1951, reporting to the group’s supervisor Dorothy Vaughan.

After two years in the computing pool, Mary Jackson received an offer to work for engineer Kazimierz Czarnecki in the 4-foot by 4-foot Supersonic Pressure Tunnel, a 60,000 horsepower wind tunnel capable of blasting models with winds approaching twice the speed of sound. Czarnecki offered Mary hands-on experience conducting experiments in the facility, and eventually suggested that she enter a training program that would allow her to earn a promotion from mathematician to engineer. Trainees had to take graduate level math and physics in after-work courses managed by the University of Virginia. Because the classes were held at then-segregated Hampton High School, however, Mary needed special permission from the City of Hampton to join her white peers in the classroom. Never one to flinch in the face of a challenge, Mary completed the courses, earned the promotion, and in 1958 became NASA’s first black female engineer. That same year, she co-authored her first report, Effects of Nose Angle and Mach Number on Transition on Cones at Supersonic Speeds.

Mary Jackson began her engineering career in an era in which female engineers of any background were a rarity; in the 1950s, she very well may have been the only black female aeronautical engineer in the field. For nearly two decades she enjoyed a productive engineering career, authoring or co-authoring a dozen or so research reports, most focused on the behavior of the boundary layer of air around airplanes. As the years progressed, the promotions slowed, and she became frustrated at her inability to break into management-level grades. In 1979, seeing that the glass ceiling was the rule rather than the exception for the center’s female professionals, she made a final, dramatic career change, leaving engineering and taking a demotion to fill the open position of Langley’s Federal Women’s Program Manager. There, she worked hard to impact the hiring and promotion of the next generation of all of NASA’s female mathematicians, engineers and scientists.

Mary retired from Langley in 1985. Among her many honors were an Apollo Group Achievement Award, and being named Langley’s Volunteer of the Year in 1976. She served as the chair of one of the center’s annual United Way campaigns, was a Girl Scout troop leader for more than three decades, and a member of the National Technical Association (the oldest African American technical organization in the United States). She and her husband Levi had an open-door policy for young Langley recruits trying to gain their footing in a new town and a new career. A 1976 Langley Researcher profile might have done the best job capturing Mary Jackson’s spirit and character, calling her a “gentlelady, wife and mother, humanitarian and scientist.” For Mary Jackson, science and service went hand in hand.

Biography by Margot Lee Shetterly
Mary Jackson Biography

Born in 1921, Mary Winston, later known as Mrs. Mary Jackson, wife and mom of two children, grew up when racism was prevalent in our ever-evolving society.

I would have liked to ask Mrs. Jackson what type of racial issues, if any, she experienced during her long career working at NASA, a .gov agency populated by many white or American citizens of Euro descent?

Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top