Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes

[mudwhistle]

Which does not explain why you act as though the last 60 years of history did not happen.

Have the last 60 years of history corrected the damage imposed by the previous 175+ years?

No. However, moving on would be a good way to start repairing whatever damage you are imagining still exists in your life rather than hanging onto the past.

No, correcting the damage would be the best way to repair the damage.

Why We Can’t Say Racism Is a Thing of the Past

Racism is not simply a thing of our past. It is very much part of our present. Everyone does not get an equal shake. We are closer than we have ever been, but we are still aren’t there.

Why We Can't Say Racism Is a Thing of the Past - Kevin A. Thompson

Enough Already About Racism!! Racism Is a Thing of the Past

“Racism is dead.” “Too many black people are playing the race card.” “Affirmative Action is unconstitutional and represents racism against white people.” “All Lives Matter.” “Political correctness is ruining America.”

These and similar sentiments are common, perhaps prevalent, in these times. “Enough already — slavery ended more than 150 years ago.” “I’m not racist and am not responsible for what someone else did in the 19th century.”

If that is indeed the case, please explain the following things to me:

Flint, MI is 60% black with 41% of its citizens living beneath the poverty line. Flint’s children have been exposed to lead in the drinking water because of a decision to save money. The toxicity of the water was covered up for many months. Grosse Pointe Shores, MI is .6% black. 2.7% live below the poverty line. Please indicate what you think the response would have been if wealthy white children in Grosse Pointe Shores were exposed to lead in the water supply?

A group of heavily armed white men, labeled “activists” by the media, trespassed and occupied federal buildings in rural Oregon. The official response was to allow them to air their grievances, order supplies and allow the situation to defuse over time. Please comment on the likely police response if a group of heavily armed black men took over federal property.

Jim Cooley, a white man, carried a loaded assault weapon into the Atlanta airport. Cooley simply went about his business, supposedly keeping his daughter safe. John Crawford, a black man, picked up an air rifle from a shelf in an Ohio Walmart and was shot to death by police. Please explain what you think might have happened if John Crawford carried a loaded assault weapon into the Atlanta airport or if Jim Cooley shopped for an air gun at Walmart.

Enough Already About Racism!! Racism Is a Thing of the Past | HuffPost

Can you explain these things mudwhistle?

So you want the rest of the white race to give you a check for all of the damage that was done to blacks over the centuries by other whites.
Maybe some dough will fix all of that damage.
When are we gonna get a check from all of the damage Obama has done to the the United States and Europe?
He started a bunch of wars in Libya and Syria and now all of those refugees are flooding Europe and the US spreading hate, rape, diseases, and murder.
Considering the fact that I've been in Africa and all of the disease and starvation that is going on there, along with all of the ethnic cleansing that has been going on and ignored by the media.....I think you should consider yourself lucky not to be still living there.

Your ignorance is funny. I mean really, you are a dumbfruck who knows nothing.

Nope. I know plenty.
Your problem is you're a racist bastard that hates white people.
Even the one's that support your ridiculous hatred.

 

[MizMolly]

I've never said anything about returning to a system of pro white discrimination.


That was the voices in your head. I am not responsible for what they say.

That's exactly what you support when you want to end AA. Because that's what AA was made to stop. And if not for AA we'd still be in a system where only whites got all the jobs, all the admissions, all the contracts and all the promotions with no consideration of merit.

Your pretense that the whites of today, are the same as the whites of the 1950s, in noted and dismissed. As stupid. And a lie.


That is just your bullshit excuse for defending pro-black discrimination.

It's no pretense. All I have to do is read the posts here at USMB, There is no pro black discrimination.

You lie. YOu have had links and excerpts repeated presented to you proving widespread and massive pro black discrimination.


You are a liar and a racist.

There is no pro black discrimination. There have been no such examples.

What Is "Reverse Racism"? Here's Why It Doesn't Actually Exist in the United States

The questions have come up before: Why isn't there a White History Month? Why isn't there a network for White Entertainment Television, like BET? Black Girls Rock? What about White Girls Rock? What about the critically acclaimed Broadway play Hamilton's call for nonwhite actors?

Clearly, these few examples demonstrate "reverse racism," or the discrimination against members of a dominant racial group. Right?

Not quite.

Source: Julia Craven

"Things like BET, Black Girls Rock or Black History Month are not reverse racist against white people," Zeba Blay, a Huffington Post Black Voices writer, illustrates in a video. "Because remember, in a society where white is seen as the default race, all history is white history. But racism isn't just someone feeling superior to another race and then discriminating against them."

Racism and prejudice aren't quite the same thing. Racism, rather, is best known as a system in which a racial majority is able to enforce its power and privilege over another race through political, economic and institutional means. Therefore racism can be described as "prejudice plus power," as the two work together to create the system of inequality.

More.

But in reality, the United States has a long legacy of racism that makes it difficult for people of color to receive quality health care, access affordable housing, find stable employment and avoid getting wrapped up in the justice system. These examples of institutionalized racism don't quite match with the examples of reverse racism, such as "Why don't WE have a White History Month?"

"There has never, ever, ever been a national set of laws or system put in place to systematically oppress white people or push them to a status that is 'less than,'" senior editor Alexia LaFata wrote for Elite Daily. "Not once. Ever. So 'reverse racism' can truly never exist."

What Is "Reverse Racism"? Here's Why It Doesn't Actually Exist in the United States

So just be quiet and:

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

Racism is not discrimination only against non-whites. It is the discrimination against any other person simply because of their race.

 

[MizMolly]

You say "WHITES" won't stop being racist. As if ALL whites are racist and as if that justifies blacks being racist.

Saying "All whites are are racist" is not the same as saying "All whites hate black people" All whites don't hate black ppl. But all whites are racist.

Look even white people who fight against racism, write books on racism and do lectures admit to them having racist thoughts.

Guys like Tim Wise shared an experience about when he got on a plane and for the first time ever he saw two black pilots flying the thing and his thought was "O. Shit. Can these blk guys fly this plane ?"

Now he caught the thought and then realized that those blk guys were more than likely the best pilots in the whole crew, they would have had to be to get the job. Can you imagine two blk men rolling up for pilot school ? You know they were tested and tested and must have aced every test thrown at them and even as qualified pilots they're probably the most watched, assessed pilots there. But that's not the point, under pressure, his first thought was to go there. And this despite all the books he's written

And after all the lectures he does.



But he is a white supremacist. All people raised in a society where racism has been n is so prevalent will have internalized elements of racist thinking. So in countries where beliefs in European/white superiority has been historically placed, it's likely that everyone in such places will have internalized some of that conditioning.

Your victim mentality and losers like you will hold you back and help prolong any racial inequalities that still exist.

You saying that some black people IM2 or even me have a victim mindset is as stupid as saying people who put on a seat-belt in car or buy insurance or boxer who is training for a big fight, that they have a victim mindset.

To tell my young son he can be anything he wants to be, if he tries hard enough is nice, but unless I warn him about the obstacles in his path. I'm ill-suiting him for the real world.

Racism Is War

So by me discussing those war tactics that whites employ on black people he can steel himself against the headwinds in his way.

While LeBron James, Tyler Perry and millions of other blacks enjoy and prosper, you will CHOOSE to cling to your racism.

Whites have always been willing to let black people entertain them, even at the height of racism.

The question is, how have you felt about blacks being your bankers, doctors, bosses, colleagues, neighbors, or in-laws for that matter?

The black people you pointed out are from the worlds of entertainment or sports, which, important though they may be, are hardly like the industries in which most people find themselves.

You see when it comes to athletic ability, you either can or you can't. You either can hit a three pointer regular or you can't. You either can make people laugh or you can't. It's pretty objective.

But in the workplace ? White ppls networks win. Will this person “fit in” with the company? Do they have “enough” experience?

All of these evaluations are judgment calls and the kind of judgment call that are often 100% white supremacist.

I'm so glad NONE of my BLACK friends are as stupid and racist as you are.

O. No you didn't (lol) You didn't use the black friends card...did you ?

I have had black supervisors in some of the companies I worked for. Never a problem. We worked well together and race was never an issue.

 

[MizMolly]

I'm 57, that's nearly 60 and can say that you are wrong.

Yes, but you are a racist and you lack integrity, hence your pronouncements are meaningless.

What we see is the standard white backlash that happens every time whites don't get to have everything.

Whites have never had everything.

Even when the evil democrats held other people as slaves, it was limited to roughly half the states. Further, free blacks in the North owned plenty of property, including many slaves.

Title 7 isn't government mandated racism. But you are white so you see fit to think it was just natural for whites to be given everything and deny others of the same opportunities which was how things were when title 7 happened. If not for title 7 that whites would still get everything and deny everyone else of the same opportunities. You are fine with that and think anything trying to stop that us racism. That's dumb.

Title VII is the government mandated treatment of people based on skin color.

It is the definition of institutional racism.

What you will never grasp is that racism is not the cure for racism.

Whites had rights and opportunities while excluding others of the same. Whites had everything.
DailyKenn is a white racist site, .These 9 statements are not facts.
AA is not racism.

HAD, past tense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Whites had rights and opportunities while excluding others of the same.

As did blacks.

In 1700, an Englishman had less rights in Morocco than a black man in Georgia.

Whites had everything.

Ignorant racism.

DailyKenn is a white racist site, .These 9 statements are not facts.
AA is not racism.

These statements are indeed fact.

You declaring a site you know absolutely nothing about "racist" because it exposes your raging bigotry is the height of irony.

You have no substance, you are a small minded racist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
I have had black supervisors in some of the companies I worked for. Never a problem. We worked well together and race was never an issue.

Normal people are not obsessed with race.

These clowns are not indicative of ordinary black Americans.

I will say they are FAR closer to white racists than they are to black normals.

We normals, white and black, will wrestle this nation back from the hate mongers.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A good question, but not when one is discussing the actions of current white people.

You are constantly speaking as though white people TODAY, are completely hostile to any participation in their events by black people.

That is absurd.

The EEOC investigates Title VII claims among other things. Is 2017 current enough for you? (these are only some of the cases in which they prevailed)

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).
  
  
• In June 2017, the EEOC investigated a restaurant operating over 100 facilities in the Eastern U.S. involving issues of hiring discrimination against African Americans. The restaurant agreed to pay $9.6 million to class members as part of a conciliation agreement. Additionally, the restaurant will overhaul its hiring procedures and has agreed to institute practices aimed at meeting hiring targets consistent with the labor market in each of the locations in which it has facilities. The new hiring procedures include implementation of an extensive applicant tracking system that will better enable the EEOC and the company to assess whether the company is meeting the targeted hiring levels. The restaurant will also provide an annual report to EEOC detailing the company's efforts in complying with the agreement and its objectives over the term of the five-year agreement, including detailed hiring assessments for each facility covered by the agreement.
  
  
• In May 2017, Rosebud Restaurants agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against 13 restaurants in the Chicago area. The chain was charged with refusing to hire African-American applicants and having managers who used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans. The monetary award will be paid to African-American applicants who were denied jobs. Pursuant to a consent decree, the chain also agreed to hiring goals with the aim of having 11 percent of its future workforce be African American. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination. EEOC v. Rosebud Rest., No. 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).

• In December 2016, Crothall Services Group, Inc., a nationwide provider of janitorial and facilities management services, settled an EEOC lawsuit by adopting significant changes to its record-keeping practices related to the use of criminal background checks. According to the EEOC's complaint, Crothall used criminal background checks to make hiring decisions without making and keeping required records that disclose the impact criminal history assessments have on persons identifiable by race, sex, or ethnic group, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. EEOC v. Crothall Servs. Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03812-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016).
  
  
• In August 2016, a magistrate judge reaffirmed that "African" has long been recognized as an acceptable class entitled to protection under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that the Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. The EEOC brought disparate impact and treatment claims based on race and national origin, and a retaliation claim for a white supervisor who stood up for the African workers and was fired several months before the test was instituted. Defendants moved for dismissal arguing (1) Africa is not a nation and so cannot serve as the basis of a national origin claim, (2) EEOC failed to allege any shared cultural or linguistic characteristics between the aggrieved individuals so they could not constitute a protected class; and (3) the EEOC's retaliation claim must be dismissed because EEOC failed to allege protected activity or the Defendants had knowledge of the white supervisor's motivations. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied in total. EEOC v. Columbine Health Sys. & New Mercer Commons, Civ. Action No. 15-cv-01597-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2016).
  
  
• In June 2016, the EEOC obtained a $350,000 settlement in its race discrimination lawsuit against defendant FAPS, Inc., a company located at Port Newark, N.J., involved in the processing for final sale of shipped automobiles. In this case, the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American available workforce in the Newark area. The agency further alleged that FAPS refused to hire qualified African-American candidates, including by telling them that no positions were available when in fact FAPS was hiring. Finally, the EEOC alleged that FAPS' employment application contained improper pre-employment medical inquiries in violation of the ADA. Besides the monetary compensation, the five year consent decree requires FAPS to meet substantial hiring goals for African-Americans; give hiring priority to rejected class members who are interested in working at the company; use recruiting methods designed to increase the African-American applicant pool; and hire an EEO coordinator to ensure compliance with Title VII. EEOC v. FAPS, Inc., C.A. No. No. 2:10-cv-03095 (D.N.J. June 15, 2016).
  
  
• In April 2015, Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and its associated apprenticeship school agreed to create a back pay fund for a group of minority sheet metal workers in partial settlement of race discrimination claims against the local union. Pursuant to the settlement, it is estimated that the union will pay approximately $12.7 million over the next five years and provide substantial remedial relief to partially resolve claims made against the union in 1991-2002. The trade union, which is responsible for sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey, allegedly discriminated against black and Hispanic journeypersons over a multi-year period in hiring and job assignments. An analysis of hours and wages showed African-American and Hispanic workers received fewer hours of work than their white co-workers during most of this same timeframe. This particular agreement covers from April 1991 through December 2002. EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Case No. 71 Civ. 2887 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2015).
  
  
• In December 2015, Hillshire Brands (formerly known as Sara Lee Corporation) agreed to pay $4 million to 74 workers at the now-shuttered Paris, Texas, plant, including the dozens of people who sought EEOC charges against Hillshire and other aggrieved workers identified by the EEOC and the plaintiffs. This resolution settles claims that the company subjected a class of Black employees to a hostile work environment that included racist graffiti and comments, that included the N-word and "boy." The company also agreed to implement training at all of its plants in a bid to end consolidated suits from the EEOC and former worker Stanley Beaty. The consent decree also requires Hillshire to implement anti-racism training and create a mechanism for employees at its existing plants to confidentially report instances of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The settlement also requires Hillshire to designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in racial bias or behavior related to it. EEOC v. Hillshire Brands Co. f/k/a Sara Lee Corp., No. 2:15-cv-01347 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15) and Beaty et al v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15).
  
  
• In October 2015, a federal judge held that the operators of an Indianapolis Hampton Inn in contempt for failing to comply with five different conditions settling the EEOC's class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the companies. The judge faulted Noble Management LLC and New Indianapolis Hotels for failing to: (1) properly post notices; (2) properly train management employees; (3) keep employment records; (4) institute a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees; and (5) reinstate three former housekeeping employees. The judge also faulted Noble and New Indianapolis Hotels for comingling of medical records in employee personnel files. As background, the EEOC filed suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race discrimination. The agency also charged that the hotel paid lower wages to Black housekeepers, excluded Black housekeeping applicants on a systemic basis, and failed to maintain records required by law in violation of Title VII. In September 2012, the judge entered a five-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's litigation against the hotel operators. The decree provided $355,000 in monetary relief to approximately 75 African-American former housekeeping employees and applicants and required training, notice posting, reinstatement of three former housekeeping employees, a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees and ordered that the defendants maintain employment-related records. The court also enjoined the operators from race discrimination and retaliation in the future. In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. Defendants were also ordered to: (1) provide monthly reporting to the EEOC on compliance with the new hiring procedure, recordkeeping and posting; (2) pay fines for late reporting; (3) allow random inspections by the EEOC subject to a fine, for failure to grant access; (4) pay fines for failure to post, destroying records or failing to distribute employment applications; (5) provide EEOC with any requested employment records within 15 days of a request; (6) cease comingling medical records; and (7) train management employees. The posting and training provisions of the Decree were also extended by two years. In November 2015, the judge awarded $50,515 in fees and $6,733.76 in costs to the EEOC because the "Defendants willfully violated the explicit terms of the Consent Decree and repeatedly failed to comply with it [.]" EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC, C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01234-WTL-DKL (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2015) (fee ruling).
  
  
• In September 2015, BMW Manufacturing Co. settled for $1.6 million and other relief an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company's criminal background check policy disproportionately affects black logistics workers at a South Carolina plant. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that after learning the results of the criminal background checks around July 2008, BMW denied plant access to 88 logistics employees, resulting in their termination from the previous logistics provider and denial of hire by the new logistics services provider for work at BMW. Of those 88 employees, 70 were Black. Some of the logistics employees had been employed at BMW for several years, working for the various logistics services providers utilized by BMW since the opening of the plant in 1994. Under the terms of a consent decree signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the $1.6 million will be shared by 56 known claimants and other black applicants the EEOC said were shut out of BMW's Spartanburg, S.C., plant when the company switched to a new logistics contractor. In addition to the monetary relief, the company will provide each claimant who wishes to return to the facility an opportunity to apply for a logistics position. BMW will also notify other applicants who have previously expressed interest in a logistics position at the facility of their right to apply for work, the decree states. BMW has implemented a new criminal background check policy and will continue to operate under that policy throughout the three-year term of the decree. The company is expressly enjoined from "utilizing the criminal background check guidelines" challenged by the EEOC in its lawsuit, the decree states. The agreement also imposes on BMW notice-posting, training, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co., No. 7:13-cv-01583 (D.S.C. consent decree filed Sep. 8, 2015).
  
  
• In August 2015, Target Corp. settled for $2.8 million an EEOC charge that the retailer's former tests for hiring for professional jobs discriminated against applicants based on race, sex and disability. Three assessments used by Target disproportionately screened out female and racial minority applicants, and a separate psychological assessment was a pre-employment medical examination that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had charged. Target also violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to maintain the records sufficient to gauge the impact of its hiring procedures. Under the three-year conciliation agreement, reached before any lawsuit was filed, Target has discontinued the use of the tests and made changes to its applicant tracking system, the EEOC said. About 4,500 unsuccessful applicants affected by the alleged discriminatory tests now are eligible to file claims for monetary relief.
  
  
• In March 2015, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling company agreed to settle for $12.26 million the EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide. According to a complaint filed by the EEOC the same day as the proposed decree, Patterson-UTI had engaged in patterns or practices of hostile work environment harassment, disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation against Hispanic, Latino, Black, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander and other minority workers at its facilities in Colorado and other states. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and report on the company's compliance with certain training, management evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015).
  
  
• In January 2015, Skanska USA Building, Inc., a building contractor headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., paid $95,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. Skanska served as the general contractor on the Methodist Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, where the incidents in this lawsuit took place. The class of Black employees worked for C-1, Inc. Construction Company, a minority-owned subcontractor for Skanska. Skanska awarded a subcontract to C-1 to provide buck hoist operations for the construction site and thereafter supervised all C-1 employees while at the work site. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially offensive comments and physical assault. EEOC v. Shanska USA Building, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015).
  
  
• In December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the staffing firms had discriminated against four Black temporary employees and a class of Black and non-Hispanic job applicants by failing to place or refer them for employment. The four temporary employees said while seeking employment through the company's Memphis area facilities, they witnessed Hispanic applicants getting preferential treatment in hiring and placement. EEOC v. New Koosharem Corp., No. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. Tenn. consent decree filed Dec. 5, 2014).
  
  
• In December 2014, three related well-servicing companies agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of verbal abuse of minority employees. The EEOC complaint alleged that J&R employees regularly used racial slurs to refer to Black, Hispanic and Native American employees. Employees of these racial groups on company rigs regularly heard racist terms and demeaning remarks about green cards and deportation, the EEOC complaint said. Several individuals complained to management, but their complaints were minimized or ignored, the complaint alleged. For example, an area supervisor responded to employee complaints by telling the complainants they could quit or by saying that he was sick of everyone coming to him and that everyone simply needed to do their jobs. In addition, the complaint stated that several men were demoted or fired after taking their complaints of discrimination to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services' Labor Standards Division. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp., No. 13-cv-00198 (D. Wyo. consent decree filed Dec. 1, 2014).
  
  
• In November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. Under a three-year consent decree signed Nov. 10 by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, ACM Services Inc. will pay a combined $110,000 to the two Hispanic female workers who first brought the allegations to the EEOC's attention and will establish a class fund of $305,000 for other potential claimants to be identified by the agency. According to the EEOC, the company has relied exclusively on "word-of-mouth recruitment practices" for field laborer positions, with the intent and effect of restricting the recruitment of Black and female applicants. ACM also subjected the two charging parties to harassment based on sex, national origin and race, and it retaliated against them for opposing the mistreatment-and against one of them based on her association with Black people-by firing them, the commission alleged. The agreement applies to all ACM facilities and locations nationwide and has extra-territorial application to the extent permitted by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the decree requires the company to set numerical hiring goals for its field laborer positions, recruit Black and female applicants via print and Internet advertisements and report to the EEOC regarding its attainment of the numerical hiring goals and other settlement terms. EEOC v. ACM Servs., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-02997 (D. Md. consent decree filed Nov. 10, 2014).
  
  
• In November 2014, Battaglia Distributing Corporation paid $735,000 to a group of current and former African-American employees. In this case, the EEOC alleged that the Battaglia tolerated an egregious race-based hostile work environment, requiring African-American dock workers to endure harassment that included racial slurs (including the "N" word). Among other relief provided under the decree, Battaglia also will provide its managers with training on Title VII and report regularly to the EEOC on any complaints it has received, as well as provide other data to demonstrate that it has not retaliated against any of the participants in the litigation. EEOC v. Battaglia Distrib. Corp., No. 13-cv-5789 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 10, 2014).

• Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases (rest of cases)

​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Normal people are not obsessed with race.

You're right, normal people do not take to message boards to cry and complain about things that don't directly concern them like Black Entertainment TV (but you're certainly welcome to watch) or Black History Month (you're certainly welcome to participate) or the Organization of Black Airline Pilots or The National Society of Black Engineers for example, although from what I've seen on this message board I suspect most of you wouldn't qualify for membership in either of the last two and it wouldn't be because you're not black.

These clowns are not indicative of ordinary black Americans.

And in your mind, what is an ordinary black American? One who doesn't talk back, who doesn't question the designated authority figure? Again you have no idea what the term racism/racist means and nobody here is going to kowtow to your made-up standard for "ordinary black Americans". Furthermore if you didn't want to know the answer then why did you ask the question. It's not our fault that it turned out to not be what you thought and wanted it to be.

We normals, white and black, will wrestle this nation back from the hate mongers.

You can come down off your soapbox now cause no one is wrestling anything away from anyone.

And you might be interested to know that one of the last people that tried coming after me on some trumped up bullshit got his ass handed to him when the State came down on his "enterprise". They thought they got away with it because the first investigator bought their bullshit story but I got lucky because the paperwork ended up on the desk of a second investigator who contacted me about the complaint I submitted. This guy left the state because he though he was getting ready to be arrested on a 3rd strike felony but not before he was fined, sanctioned and banned from doing business for 5 years.

I know a lot of people play on these boards, but threatening people online even if it's just stating that you're going to do things to diminish or restrict any of their rights is not something you want to get involved in. One or more people conspiring to do anything that is unlawful is actionable in my state as is cyberstalking including third-party stalking which is also known as stalking by proxy (send someone to follow a person, take pictures of them and then send them back to the original stalker - post the resulting photos and report online). Don't even think about doing something like that.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Racism is not discrimination only against non-whites. It is the discrimination against any other person simply because of their race.

But racism and discrimination are not the same thing. We all discriminate in a myriad of ways in our daily lives, we have to in order to navigate life and at times keep ourselves and others safe. Racial discrimination however is not preferring one race to another in matters such as your associates or dating or friends if all it is is a preference. It's only racial discrimination if the reason you prefer one race to the other is because of the belief that your race is superior and the disdained race is inferior.

To take things a little bit further, you (not you personally) can be a raging racist all day long 24/7 and hate whomever you want and for the most part no one is really going to pay that much attention. It's only when people act on their racists beliefs and decide to deny someone not of their race something that the person is other entitled to that it becomes an issue where the government or an attorney via a lawsuit intervenes to protect the rights of the discriminated party.

The other part of this situation that many seem unable to grasp is when specific white people start talking about black people taking away jobs and university seats, etc. they're operating from the false premise that the white people of our country believed themselves to be, by right (God given), entitled to EVERYTHING within it, including the lives of black people, and that anything that is given to anyone who is not white is "taking away" from them.

I asked the question of another poster if he thought when the all black Tuskegee airmen were given flight slots if he considered that "taking away" flight slots from some of the white pilots. He thus far has indicated that he refuses to answer allegedly because it was 60 years ago but my point remains.

 

[IM2]

I'm 57, that's nearly 60 and can say that you are wrong.

Yes, but you are a racist and you lack integrity, hence your pronouncements are meaningless.

What we see is the standard white backlash that happens every time whites don't get to have everything.

Whites have never had everything.

Even when the evil democrats held other people as slaves, it was limited to roughly half the states. Further, free blacks in the North owned plenty of property, including many slaves.

Title 7 isn't government mandated racism. But you are white so you see fit to think it was just natural for whites to be given everything and deny others of the same opportunities which was how things were when title 7 happened. If not for title 7 that whites would still get everything and deny everyone else of the same opportunities. You are fine with that and think anything trying to stop that us racism. That's dumb.

Title VII is the government mandated treatment of people based on skin color.

It is the definition of institutional racism.

What you will never grasp is that racism is not the cure for racism.

Whites had rights and opportunities while excluding others of the same. Whites had everything.
DailyKenn is a white racist site, .These 9 statements are not facts.
AA is not racism.

HAD, past tense.

White racism continues today. Present tense.

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

 

[IM2]

Normal people are not obsessed with race.

You're right, normal people do not take to message boards to cry and complain about things that don't directly concern them like Black Entertainment TV (but you're certainly welcome to watch) or Black History Month (you're certainly welcome to participate) or the Organization of Black Airline Pilots or The National Society of Black Engineers for example, although from what I've seen on this message board I suspect most of you wouldn't qualify for membership in either of the last two and it wouldn't be because you're not black.

These clowns are not indicative of ordinary black Americans.

And in your mind, what is an ordinary black American? One who doesn't talk back, who doesn't question the designated authority figure? Again you have no idea what the term racism/racist means and nobody here is going to kowtow to your made-up standard for "ordinary black Americans". Furthermore if you didn't want to know the answer then why did you ask the question. It's not our fault that it turned out to not be what you thought and wanted it to be.

We normals, white and black, will wrestle this nation back from the hate mongers.

You can come down off your soapbox now cause no one is wrestling anything away from anyone.

And you might be interested to know that one of the last people that tried coming after me on some trumped up bullshit got his ass handed to him when the State came down on his "enterprise". They thought they got away with it because the first investigator bought their bullshit story but I got lucky because the paperwork ended up on the desk of a second investigator who contacted me about the complaint I submitted. This guy left the state because he though he was getting ready to be arrested on a 3rd strike felony but not before he was fined, sanctioned and banned from doing business for 5 years.

I know a lot of people play on these boards, but threatening people online even if it's just stating that you're going to do things to diminish or restrict any of their rights is not something you want to get involved in. One or more people conspiring to do anything that is unlawful is actionable in my state as is cyberstalking including third-party stalking which is also known as stalking by proxy (send someone to follow a person, take pictures of them and then send them back to the original stalker - post the resulting photos and report online). Don't even think about doing something like that.

These white people seem to really think they are dealing with impoverished uneducated blacks.. You are a very talented person NewsVIne, a fine example of a successful black person who is not a sellout. You are to be emulated by young blacks, you are a tremendous role model.

 

[IM2]

A good question, but not when one is discussing the actions of current white people.

You are constantly speaking as though white people TODAY, are completely hostile to any participation in their events by black people.

That is absurd.

The EEOC investigates Title VII claims among other things. Is 2017 current enough for you? (these are only some of the cases in which they prevailed)

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).
  
  
• In June 2017, the EEOC investigated a restaurant operating over 100 facilities in the Eastern U.S. involving issues of hiring discrimination against African Americans. The restaurant agreed to pay $9.6 million to class members as part of a conciliation agreement. Additionally, the restaurant will overhaul its hiring procedures and has agreed to institute practices aimed at meeting hiring targets consistent with the labor market in each of the locations in which it has facilities. The new hiring procedures include implementation of an extensive applicant tracking system that will better enable the EEOC and the company to assess whether the company is meeting the targeted hiring levels. The restaurant will also provide an annual report to EEOC detailing the company's efforts in complying with the agreement and its objectives over the term of the five-year agreement, including detailed hiring assessments for each facility covered by the agreement.
  
  
• In May 2017, Rosebud Restaurants agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against 13 restaurants in the Chicago area. The chain was charged with refusing to hire African-American applicants and having managers who used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans. The monetary award will be paid to African-American applicants who were denied jobs. Pursuant to a consent decree, the chain also agreed to hiring goals with the aim of having 11 percent of its future workforce be African American. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination. EEOC v. Rosebud Rest., No. 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).

• In December 2016, Crothall Services Group, Inc., a nationwide provider of janitorial and facilities management services, settled an EEOC lawsuit by adopting significant changes to its record-keeping practices related to the use of criminal background checks. According to the EEOC's complaint, Crothall used criminal background checks to make hiring decisions without making and keeping required records that disclose the impact criminal history assessments have on persons identifiable by race, sex, or ethnic group, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. EEOC v. Crothall Servs. Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03812-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016).
  
  
• In August 2016, a magistrate judge reaffirmed that "African" has long been recognized as an acceptable class entitled to protection under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that the Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. The EEOC brought disparate impact and treatment claims based on race and national origin, and a retaliation claim for a white supervisor who stood up for the African workers and was fired several months before the test was instituted. Defendants moved for dismissal arguing (1) Africa is not a nation and so cannot serve as the basis of a national origin claim, (2) EEOC failed to allege any shared cultural or linguistic characteristics between the aggrieved individuals so they could not constitute a protected class; and (3) the EEOC's retaliation claim must be dismissed because EEOC failed to allege protected activity or the Defendants had knowledge of the white supervisor's motivations. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied in total. EEOC v. Columbine Health Sys. & New Mercer Commons, Civ. Action No. 15-cv-01597-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2016).
  
  
• In June 2016, the EEOC obtained a $350,000 settlement in its race discrimination lawsuit against defendant FAPS, Inc., a company located at Port Newark, N.J., involved in the processing for final sale of shipped automobiles. In this case, the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American available workforce in the Newark area. The agency further alleged that FAPS refused to hire qualified African-American candidates, including by telling them that no positions were available when in fact FAPS was hiring. Finally, the EEOC alleged that FAPS' employment application contained improper pre-employment medical inquiries in violation of the ADA. Besides the monetary compensation, the five year consent decree requires FAPS to meet substantial hiring goals for African-Americans; give hiring priority to rejected class members who are interested in working at the company; use recruiting methods designed to increase the African-American applicant pool; and hire an EEO coordinator to ensure compliance with Title VII. EEOC v. FAPS, Inc., C.A. No. No. 2:10-cv-03095 (D.N.J. June 15, 2016).
  
  
• In April 2015, Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and its associated apprenticeship school agreed to create a back pay fund for a group of minority sheet metal workers in partial settlement of race discrimination claims against the local union. Pursuant to the settlement, it is estimated that the union will pay approximately $12.7 million over the next five years and provide substantial remedial relief to partially resolve claims made against the union in 1991-2002. The trade union, which is responsible for sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey, allegedly discriminated against black and Hispanic journeypersons over a multi-year period in hiring and job assignments. An analysis of hours and wages showed African-American and Hispanic workers received fewer hours of work than their white co-workers during most of this same timeframe. This particular agreement covers from April 1991 through December 2002. EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Case No. 71 Civ. 2887 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2015).
  
  
• In December 2015, Hillshire Brands (formerly known as Sara Lee Corporation) agreed to pay $4 million to 74 workers at the now-shuttered Paris, Texas, plant, including the dozens of people who sought EEOC charges against Hillshire and other aggrieved workers identified by the EEOC and the plaintiffs. This resolution settles claims that the company subjected a class of Black employees to a hostile work environment that included racist graffiti and comments, that included the N-word and "boy." The company also agreed to implement training at all of its plants in a bid to end consolidated suits from the EEOC and former worker Stanley Beaty. The consent decree also requires Hillshire to implement anti-racism training and create a mechanism for employees at its existing plants to confidentially report instances of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The settlement also requires Hillshire to designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in racial bias or behavior related to it. EEOC v. Hillshire Brands Co. f/k/a Sara Lee Corp., No. 2:15-cv-01347 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15) and Beaty et al v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15).
  
  
• In October 2015, a federal judge held that the operators of an Indianapolis Hampton Inn in contempt for failing to comply with five different conditions settling the EEOC's class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the companies. The judge faulted Noble Management LLC and New Indianapolis Hotels for failing to: (1) properly post notices; (2) properly train management employees; (3) keep employment records; (4) institute a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees; and (5) reinstate three former housekeeping employees. The judge also faulted Noble and New Indianapolis Hotels for comingling of medical records in employee personnel files. As background, the EEOC filed suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race discrimination. The agency also charged that the hotel paid lower wages to Black housekeepers, excluded Black housekeeping applicants on a systemic basis, and failed to maintain records required by law in violation of Title VII. In September 2012, the judge entered a five-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's litigation against the hotel operators. The decree provided $355,000 in monetary relief to approximately 75 African-American former housekeeping employees and applicants and required training, notice posting, reinstatement of three former housekeeping employees, a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees and ordered that the defendants maintain employment-related records. The court also enjoined the operators from race discrimination and retaliation in the future. In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. Defendants were also ordered to: (1) provide monthly reporting to the EEOC on compliance with the new hiring procedure, recordkeeping and posting; (2) pay fines for late reporting; (3) allow random inspections by the EEOC subject to a fine, for failure to grant access; (4) pay fines for failure to post, destroying records or failing to distribute employment applications; (5) provide EEOC with any requested employment records within 15 days of a request; (6) cease comingling medical records; and (7) train management employees. The posting and training provisions of the Decree were also extended by two years. In November 2015, the judge awarded $50,515 in fees and $6,733.76 in costs to the EEOC because the "Defendants willfully violated the explicit terms of the Consent Decree and repeatedly failed to comply with it [.]" EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC, C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01234-WTL-DKL (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2015) (fee ruling).
  
  
• In September 2015, BMW Manufacturing Co. settled for $1.6 million and other relief an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company's criminal background check policy disproportionately affects black logistics workers at a South Carolina plant. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that after learning the results of the criminal background checks around July 2008, BMW denied plant access to 88 logistics employees, resulting in their termination from the previous logistics provider and denial of hire by the new logistics services provider for work at BMW. Of those 88 employees, 70 were Black. Some of the logistics employees had been employed at BMW for several years, working for the various logistics services providers utilized by BMW since the opening of the plant in 1994. Under the terms of a consent decree signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the $1.6 million will be shared by 56 known claimants and other black applicants the EEOC said were shut out of BMW's Spartanburg, S.C., plant when the company switched to a new logistics contractor. In addition to the monetary relief, the company will provide each claimant who wishes to return to the facility an opportunity to apply for a logistics position. BMW will also notify other applicants who have previously expressed interest in a logistics position at the facility of their right to apply for work, the decree states. BMW has implemented a new criminal background check policy and will continue to operate under that policy throughout the three-year term of the decree. The company is expressly enjoined from "utilizing the criminal background check guidelines" challenged by the EEOC in its lawsuit, the decree states. The agreement also imposes on BMW notice-posting, training, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co., No. 7:13-cv-01583 (D.S.C. consent decree filed Sep. 8, 2015).
  
  
• In August 2015, Target Corp. settled for $2.8 million an EEOC charge that the retailer's former tests for hiring for professional jobs discriminated against applicants based on race, sex and disability. Three assessments used by Target disproportionately screened out female and racial minority applicants, and a separate psychological assessment was a pre-employment medical examination that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had charged. Target also violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to maintain the records sufficient to gauge the impact of its hiring procedures. Under the three-year conciliation agreement, reached before any lawsuit was filed, Target has discontinued the use of the tests and made changes to its applicant tracking system, the EEOC said. About 4,500 unsuccessful applicants affected by the alleged discriminatory tests now are eligible to file claims for monetary relief.
  
  
• In March 2015, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling company agreed to settle for $12.26 million the EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide. According to a complaint filed by the EEOC the same day as the proposed decree, Patterson-UTI had engaged in patterns or practices of hostile work environment harassment, disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation against Hispanic, Latino, Black, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander and other minority workers at its facilities in Colorado and other states. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and report on the company's compliance with certain training, management evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015).
  
  
• In January 2015, Skanska USA Building, Inc., a building contractor headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., paid $95,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. Skanska served as the general contractor on the Methodist Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, where the incidents in this lawsuit took place. The class of Black employees worked for C-1, Inc. Construction Company, a minority-owned subcontractor for Skanska. Skanska awarded a subcontract to C-1 to provide buck hoist operations for the construction site and thereafter supervised all C-1 employees while at the work site. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially offensive comments and physical assault. EEOC v. Shanska USA Building, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015).
  
  
• In December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the staffing firms had discriminated against four Black temporary employees and a class of Black and non-Hispanic job applicants by failing to place or refer them for employment. The four temporary employees said while seeking employment through the company's Memphis area facilities, they witnessed Hispanic applicants getting preferential treatment in hiring and placement. EEOC v. New Koosharem Corp., No. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. Tenn. consent decree filed Dec. 5, 2014).
  
  
• In December 2014, three related well-servicing companies agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of verbal abuse of minority employees. The EEOC complaint alleged that J&R employees regularly used racial slurs to refer to Black, Hispanic and Native American employees. Employees of these racial groups on company rigs regularly heard racist terms and demeaning remarks about green cards and deportation, the EEOC complaint said. Several individuals complained to management, but their complaints were minimized or ignored, the complaint alleged. For example, an area supervisor responded to employee complaints by telling the complainants they could quit or by saying that he was sick of everyone coming to him and that everyone simply needed to do their jobs. In addition, the complaint stated that several men were demoted or fired after taking their complaints of discrimination to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services' Labor Standards Division. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp., No. 13-cv-00198 (D. Wyo. consent decree filed Dec. 1, 2014).
  
  
• In November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. Under a three-year consent decree signed Nov. 10 by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, ACM Services Inc. will pay a combined $110,000 to the two Hispanic female workers who first brought the allegations to the EEOC's attention and will establish a class fund of $305,000 for other potential claimants to be identified by the agency. According to the EEOC, the company has relied exclusively on "word-of-mouth recruitment practices" for field laborer positions, with the intent and effect of restricting the recruitment of Black and female applicants. ACM also subjected the two charging parties to harassment based on sex, national origin and race, and it retaliated against them for opposing the mistreatment-and against one of them based on her association with Black people-by firing them, the commission alleged. The agreement applies to all ACM facilities and locations nationwide and has extra-territorial application to the extent permitted by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the decree requires the company to set numerical hiring goals for its field laborer positions, recruit Black and female applicants via print and Internet advertisements and report to the EEOC regarding its attainment of the numerical hiring goals and other settlement terms. EEOC v. ACM Servs., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-02997 (D. Md. consent decree filed Nov. 10, 2014).
  
  
• In November 2014, Battaglia Distributing Corporation paid $735,000 to a group of current and former African-American employees. In this case, the EEOC alleged that the Battaglia tolerated an egregious race-based hostile work environment, requiring African-American dock workers to endure harassment that included racial slurs (including the "N" word). Among other relief provided under the decree, Battaglia also will provide its managers with training on Title VII and report regularly to the EEOC on any complaints it has received, as well as provide other data to demonstrate that it has not retaliated against any of the participants in the litigation. EEOC v. Battaglia Distrib. Corp., No. 13-cv-5789 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 10, 2014).

• Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases (rest of cases)

​

Teach!

 

[IM2]

You say "WHITES" won't stop being racist. As if ALL whites are racist and as if that justifies blacks being racist.

Saying "All whites are are racist" is not the same as saying "All whites hate black people" All whites don't hate black ppl. But all whites are racist.

Look even white people who fight against racism, write books on racism and do lectures admit to them having racist thoughts.

Guys like Tim Wise shared an experience about when he got on a plane and for the first time ever he saw two black pilots flying the thing and his thought was "O. Shit. Can these blk guys fly this plane ?"

Now he caught the thought and then realized that those blk guys were more than likely the best pilots in the whole crew, they would have had to be to get the job. Can you imagine two blk men rolling up for pilot school ? You know they were tested and tested and must have aced every test thrown at them and even as qualified pilots they're probably the most watched, assessed pilots there. But that's not the point, under pressure, his first thought was to go there. And this despite all the books he's written

And after all the lectures he does.



But he is a white supremacist. All people raised in a society where racism has been n is so prevalent will have internalized elements of racist thinking. So in countries where beliefs in European/white superiority has been historically placed, it's likely that everyone in such places will have internalized some of that conditioning.

Your victim mentality and losers like you will hold you back and help prolong any racial inequalities that still exist.

You saying that some black people IM2 or even me have a victim mindset is as stupid as saying people who put on a seat-belt in car or buy insurance or boxer who is training for a big fight, that they have a victim mindset.

To tell my young son he can be anything he wants to be, if he tries hard enough is nice, but unless I warn him about the obstacles in his path. I'm ill-suiting him for the real world.

Racism Is War

So by me discussing those war tactics that whites employ on black people he can steel himself against the headwinds in his way.

While LeBron James, Tyler Perry and millions of other blacks enjoy and prosper, you will CHOOSE to cling to your racism.

Whites have always been willing to let black people entertain them, even at the height of racism.

The question is, how have you felt about blacks being your bankers, doctors, bosses, colleagues, neighbors, or in-laws for that matter?

The black people you pointed out are from the worlds of entertainment or sports, which, important though they may be, are hardly like the industries in which most people find themselves.

You see when it comes to athletic ability, you either can or you can't. You either can hit a three pointer regular or you can't. You either can make people laugh or you can't. It's pretty objective.

But in the workplace ? White ppls networks win. Will this person “fit in” with the company? Do they have “enough” experience?

All of these evaluations are judgment calls and the kind of judgment call that are often 100% white supremacist.

I'm so glad NONE of my BLACK friends are as stupid and racist as you are.

O. No you didn't (lol) You didn't use the black friends card...did you ?

I have had black supervisors in some of the companies I worked for. Never a problem. We worked well together and race was never an issue.

I've worked with white people too. But that doesn't mean racism is not a problem. You don't discuss race at work idiot. Unless it's a BFOQ. Yes I used an insult because quite frankly you are a insulting person. All you do is make excuses trying to tell me blacks here who what we see and have experienced is not so because you are white and it doesn't happen to you. Turn black, then talk.

 

[candycorn]

This is one of the first subjects I talked about when I started posting on message boards. Are Blacks on average more racist than whites?
I've always believed that they are. Something that I discovered growing up was that almost every black in America thinks about race every day, whereas most whites don't. There's a reason for this, but this simple fact is being used by the left to divide America.

Not sure "who" is more racist. The important this is to not be one yourself.

Since being black can get you killed in this nation, I cannot blame blacks for being mindful of their race and what other races are around.

 

[IM2]

[

Whites had rights and opportunities while excluding others of the same.

As did blacks.

In 1700, an Englishman had less rights in Morocco than a black man in Georgia.

Whites had everything.

Ignorant racism.

DailyKenn is a white racist site, .These 9 statements are not facts.
AA is not racism.

These statements are indeed fact.

You declaring a site you know absolutely nothing about "racist" because it exposes your raging bigotry is the height of irony.

You have no substance, you are a small minded racist.

I know about DailyKenn because I've looked at it more than once because more idiots than you have used the 9 lies you posted from that site.

None of these comments are fact. Period.

For example Hugh Gywnn was the first slave owner in the US when the Virginia House Of Burgesses decided to make John Punch a slave in 1640. Johnson purchased his family members in 1655.

Those 3,000 blacks who owned 12,000 slaves, were maybe 3 percent of the black population and they owned less than 1 prcent of the slaves. In most cases, these people purchased family members.

Blacks could not own property by law. Blacks were not citizens of the United States per naturalization acts, and had no constitutional rights, per Dred Scott v. Sandford.

There were kings in Africa who started off as slaves The system of slavery in Africa was not chattel slavery and whites did not end chattel slavery here.

When it is said we talk about a history of racist laws and policy many do not understand the full extent of what is meant. According to the 13th Amendment, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdiction."I think people really need to understand the impact of the underlined words. Blacks were arrested, tried, found guilty and sent to prison for crimes such as vagrancy, cussing in front of whites, jaywalking and other minor or non offenses for whites. Because of this, they could be returned to slavery and were. There has been no amendment to change this part of the 13th Amendment meaning that in reality slavery still exists in America today.

Employment was required of all freedmen; violators faced vagrancy charges

•Freedmen could not assemble without the presence of a white person

•Freedmen were assumed to be agricultural workers and their duties and hours were tightly regulated

•Freedmen were not to be taught to read or write

•Public facilities were segregated

•Violators of these laws were subject to being whipped or branded.

And sent back into slavery. Just think about it, a black person could be convicted of not being employed and sent back into slavery along who many other things. Far too many people want to argue about things said without an understanding of the depth and length of things that have and continue to occur.

You are a racist who is full of shit.

 

[IM2]

That's exactly what you support when you want to end AA. Because that's what AA was made to stop. And if not for AA we'd still be in a system where only whites got all the jobs, all the admissions, all the contracts and all the promotions with no consideration of merit.

Your pretense that the whites of today, are the same as the whites of the 1950s, in noted and dismissed. As stupid. And a lie.


That is just your bullshit excuse for defending pro-black discrimination.

It's no pretense. All I have to do is read the posts here at USMB, There is no pro black discrimination.

You lie. YOu have had links and excerpts repeated presented to you proving widespread and massive pro black discrimination.


You are a liar and a racist.

There is no pro black discrimination. There have been no such examples.

What Is "Reverse Racism"? Here's Why It Doesn't Actually Exist in the United States

The questions have come up before: Why isn't there a White History Month? Why isn't there a network for White Entertainment Television, like BET? Black Girls Rock? What about White Girls Rock? What about the critically acclaimed Broadway play Hamilton's call for nonwhite actors?

Clearly, these few examples demonstrate "reverse racism," or the discrimination against members of a dominant racial group. Right?

Not quite.

Source: Julia Craven

"Things like BET, Black Girls Rock or Black History Month are not reverse racist against white people," Zeba Blay, a Huffington Post Black Voices writer, illustrates in a video. "Because remember, in a society where white is seen as the default race, all history is white history. But racism isn't just someone feeling superior to another race and then discriminating against them."

Racism and prejudice aren't quite the same thing. Racism, rather, is best known as a system in which a racial majority is able to enforce its power and privilege over another race through political, economic and institutional means. Therefore racism can be described as "prejudice plus power," as the two work together to create the system of inequality.

More.

But in reality, the United States has a long legacy of racism that makes it difficult for people of color to receive quality health care, access affordable housing, find stable employment and avoid getting wrapped up in the justice system. These examples of institutionalized racism don't quite match with the examples of reverse racism, such as "Why don't WE have a White History Month?"

"There has never, ever, ever been a national set of laws or system put in place to systematically oppress white people or push them to a status that is 'less than,'" senior editor Alexia LaFata wrote for Elite Daily. "Not once. Ever. So 'reverse racism' can truly never exist."

What Is "Reverse Racism"? Here's Why It Doesn't Actually Exist in the United States

So just be quiet and:

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

Racism is not discrimination only against non-whites. It is the discrimination against any other person simply because of their race.

Whites are not discriminated against based on race. You think that because you don't get everything that it's discrimination. It is not. Racial discrimination for us as blacks is ZERO allowed. We can't have 70 percent of the jobs at a company and file a suit that blacks are being discriminated against by that company because of race. But that's what whites are doing. And it's ridiculous.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

These white people seem to really think they are dealing with impoverished uneducated blacks.. You are a very talented person NewsVIne, a fine example of a successful black person who is not a sellout. You are to be emulated by young blacks, you are a tremendous role model.

Thank you so much for such kind words, but dare I ask? Who said I was a sellout?

 

[IM2]

A good question, but not when one is discussing the actions of current white people.

You are constantly speaking as though white people TODAY, are completely hostile to any participation in their events by black people.

That is absurd.

So I'm arguing (or debating) the side of the issue that says it's preposterous to believe that the majority of white people believe blacks are more racists than whites. I'm stating that the whole idea that this could be true is ludicrous because of the fact that the people who founded our nation were white supremacists...

The founding of this nation was almost two hundred and fifty years ago.


To pretend that it is "preposterous" that ideas could change is as little as 10 generations,

is utterly preposterous of YOU.

Whatever angst you're feeling that you believe is caused by black people pursuing and fighting for their equal rights couldn't possibly compare to actual systemic and long term damage that was inflicted, rarely acknowledged and certainly have never had any steps taken to be made "whole" again as some others have.

I only mention the past strife of desegregation, to show that the majority of the population was very serious and committed to doing it.

So if it sounds like I'm not taking time out to acknowledge the non-racist white people or argue this issue from the other side it's because we're outnumbered by people who have no concept of what racism actually entails, an appalling lack of knowledge of American history, little if any understanding of civil rights legislation or the ability to read and understand court rulings. Plus I'm doing this in between my other work & studies.

Sorry, but that's no excuse for acting like it's the height of Klan power in 2018.

What's confounding to me is that you personally have stated that the country is no longer hostile to African Americans but I don't understand how you could arrive at that conclusion if you're paying attention to the things that are being posted just in this message board conversation. Before this one I was participating on one on affirmative action and that one was way worse than this one.

Have you see the analysis of the population of white voters who supported EITHER, the hypothetical presidency of Colin Powell o the actual presidency of President Obama?


The percentage of white voters who were hostile to BOTH of those black candidates, was in the single digits.

If everything that you've achieved or obtained in your life was done without having to face adversity, then good for you, a lot of us were not given that option. So we had to learn how to navigate a landscape that was littered with landmines and with people sabotaging our efforts at times all along the way. So when I hear sometime crying about black history month, or Black entertainment TV or Black whatever my reaction is usually "seriously, the worse thing you have to worry about in life is what someone else who happens to be black is celebrating or watching?"

NOt sure where you got the idea, I have not faced adversity.


If you have Black History Month, can I have White History Month?

You do, they are called January March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December.

Obama got 43 and 39 percent of the white vote in both his campaigns. You live in an imaginary world.

White racism is done differently now, we know it and you do it. Just as you know you are lying and that you are a racist, we know what you are here trying to tell us. This is not about the KKK when there are about 1,000 or more white supremacist groups in existence today and the number is growing

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

 

[IM2]

These white people seem to really think they are dealing with impoverished uneducated blacks.. You are a very talented person NewsVIne, a fine example of a successful black person who is not a sellout. You are to be emulated by young blacks, you are a tremendous role model.

Thank you so much for such kind words, but dare I ask? Who said I was a sellout?

No one. I was comparing you to the blacks who these people call successful. You are very successful, but. you are not like a Ben Carson or others who are sellouts. You are most certainly welcome.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is one of the first subjects I talked about when I started posting on message boards. Are Blacks on average more racist than whites?
I've always believed that they are. Something that I discovered growing up was that almost every black in America thinks about race every day, whereas most whites don't. There's a reason for this, but this simple fact is being used by the left to divide America.

Not sure "who" is more racist. The important this is to not be one yourself.

Since being black can get you killed in this nation, I cannot blame blacks for being mindful of their race and what other races are around.

Being white can get you killed in some parts of the country.
I think some blacks carry their feelings around on their sleeves so they are too easily offended.

One of the shocks of my life is the discovery that so many famous blacks hate whites.
I always looked at them like they were humans first and black second.
Blacks tend to assume that whites hate them, but this isn't true.
I think this is a learned stereotype and one that is false.

Once you discover that they almost universally harbored hatred for the white people that buy their shit, it tends to change your opinion of them.

When I was in H.S. we had two black students.
Everyone knew them.
They were celebrities because of their race.
Everybody liked them.
Course that wouldn't be the case if they acted like they hated all of their white friends.
I grew up believing that most blacks didn't hate me for my white skin.
Then I grew up.
It appears that racism is very strong in America, but mostly among blacks.