Zone1 I pushed my kids to succeed academically to escape racism. But it doesn't work that way

[themirrorthief]

But when we as blacks try talking to you about this you need to stop pretending that white racism is not a hurdle.
No one is pretending that white racism is not a hurdle. No one cares that you think that white racism is a hurdle at all.

If only whites would think about how hard blacks work and what racism means the black plight would get better. When, in fact, no one cares.

we get it dude, you hate whitey and always will because you arent white....blame your parents no us

 

[Markle]

In 1954, Gordon Alpert developed a theory of prejudice based on what is called contact hypothesis. To paraphrase what I learned in a very simple way is that prejudice comes from applying a broad brush to describe or stereotype an entire group of people based on a lack of information about that particular group. In discussing race in this forum we see all kinds of stereotyped factless comments coming primarily from the right.

I pushed my kids to succeed academically to escape racism. But it doesn't work that way

Moms everywhere are suffering from burnout. But Black mom burnout is different. As a Black mother to two teenage sons and a toddler daughter, I find myself wondering: Will my children be perceived as a threat and cut down in their prime because of their race? Will they miss out because they’re invisible to whoever is passing out the opportunities? Do they have to be perceived as perfect to get any chance to seize their dreams?

Many people of color often turn to the one tool we have in our own shed — the instinct to try to outwork any negative perceptions of us, to tackle the questions that haunt us like the spirits of our ancestors. We’re taught to overwork to prove ourselves beyond the reach of racism and to render racist stereotypes unbelievable or even laughable.

But is this tendency to overwork — and our tendency to encourage our children to do the same — an attempt to outrun systemic issues beyond our control?

Growing up in Tennessee, I was taught working hard was the key to everything — happiness, upward mobility and rising above racism in the South. And while I consider my work ethic one of my greatest gifts, it seems the neat equation of “racism + hard work = less discrimination” doesn’t always add up.

“Work twice as hard to get half as much” was the mantra many of us were raised on, but it is considered by most Black moms today to be played-out advice from our parents’ generation. Despite that, racism and its effects haven’t expired, and in many ways, they’ve been given new life in this era.

MSN

www.msn.com

The problem wiith those who call themselves in opposition is the fact that they believe things that do not apply to the way blacks are raised. Perhaps if you are white and don't put in the effort, you will not not suceed. Perhaps if you are white and don't focus on education you will fail. But when we as blacks try talking to you about this you need to stop pretending that white racism is not a hurdle. Whites do not face this:

“I can say for sure that happens because I did it. Before retirement, I was an Engineer. For the last 20 years of my career, I was a Manager and Director and I hired hundreds of people. I reviewed well over a thousand resumes for all kinds of positions. Everything from Secretaries to Engineering Managers. Both Salary and Hourly. I always culled out the resumes with Black Ethnic names. Never shortlisted anybody with a Black Ethnic name. Never hired them.” Since the Fortune 50 company I worked for had a stupid “affirmative action” hiring policies I never mentioned it to anybody and I always got away with it. A couple of times I was instructed to improve my departmental “diversity” demographics but I alwas red it and never got into any trouble. My stereotype is that anybody with a stupid ghetto Black ethnic name is probably worthless. I could have been wrong a couple of times but I was also probably right 99% of the time. Glad I did it. I would do it again.”

As a leading troll on this message board, when was the last time you threw up this same thread?

 

[Markle]

You do care. That's why you're here trying to tell me that you don't. You can't face the truth. So if you don't care don't post in this thread. That's what normal people do.

Actually, NORMAL people don't hang out 24/7 on a message board whining for years without offering solutions. Yet, here you are.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The law may have been rescinded almost 60 years ago but changing laws do not change people's behaviors.

The quotation that IM2 posted in his OP is a perfect example of this. That guy knows what the laws are and chose to intentionally violate the rights of any of the job applicants he thought to be Black in order to further the premise of white supremacy upon which the United States was founded.

The article below is from the American Bar association. I personally can testify to the fact that our justice system is still biased against Black and as the article states, it begins long before any of us even have contact with the justice system due to the preconceived notions and stereotypes about black people.

This bias also has a presence in the civil justice system
Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice

Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice​

How Lawyers Can Help​

Shasta N. Inman​

​

The criminal justice system’s problems with racism start before the first contact and continue through pleas, conviction, incarceration, and release.​

​

​

Race & the (In)Justice System, an On-Demand CLE webinar that's free for ABA members, focuses on the racial disparity in the criminal justice system and the disproportionate effect of mass incarceration on people of color. Watch the webinar to learn more about the cause of racial disparity in our criminal justice system, the collateral consequences of mass incarceration on people of color, and what lawyers can do to drive meaningful change to reduce the racial disparity.​

​

Last year, protests erupted across the country related to police brutality against people of color. The Black Lives Matter movement was in the news every day—and even painted on the streets of cities nationwide.​

​

Those events have focused the public criminal-justice-reform dialogue on avoiding violent first interactions between officers and individuals of color. However, those first interactions are not the only ones that are unjust. The criminal justice system’s pervasive problems with racism start before the first contact and continue through pleas, conviction, incarceration, release, and beyond.​

The net effects of history’s injustices are staggering. According to statistics the NAACP examined, although Black people make up 13.4 percent of the population, they make up:​

• 22 percent of fatal police shootings,
• 47 percent of wrongful conviction exonerations, and
• 35 percent of individuals executed by the death penalty.

African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at five times the rate of whites. Black men face disproportionately harsh incarceration experiences as compared with prisoners of other races. Racial disparities are also noticeable with Black youth, as evidenced by the school-to-prison pipeline and higher rates of incarceration for Black juveniles.​

The evidence of differential treatment and injustice in the “justice” system is overwhelming. Because the problems are historically rooted, pervasive, and ongoing, it is even more critical to take action now (and in the future). The question, then, is what can we do about it? Attorneys have a unique role in the administration of justice. Here are a few ways we can use our law degrees to join the fight for genuinely equitable justice:​

• Stay apprised of national events, instances of police brutality, statutory changes, and case law—awareness is the first step!
• Work locally to hold the system accountable by pointing out inequities in police and court treatment of people of color.
• Get involved in local mentorship and pipeline programs that increase diversity in the legal profession.
• Become a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer to protect the right to protest.
• Apply to become a Court Justice Act (CJA) appointed attorney in your local federal district courts or courts of appeals to represent indigent criminal defendants and individuals seeking federal habeas relief.
• Reach out to local state and federal courts with re-entry programs designed to assist recently released individuals in re-entering society.
• Research ways to get involved in battling juvenile mass incarceration.

More blacks are arrested and shot because they commit crime MORE than whites. God you are stupid and anyone that buys this hogwash is moronic.

 

[IM2]

I never knew what racism was, much less rarely ever heard the word used.

Until I was in my 20's, out on my own, in the work world. I was met with it like a big slap in the face.

Since that incident, I've become racist and bigoted against certain people........regardless of thier color.
BUT.........If you're going to act like the stereotype you've been given, then thats exactly how I will treat you.

Sure, yeah, right.

 

[IM2]

Actually, NORMAL people don't hang out 24/7 on a message board whining for years without offering solutions. Yet, here you are.

You're here more than me. Whites like you want to pretend you don't know what the solution is and then want to press blacks to provide the solution to a problem those like you created and continue to perpetuate. You are the problem and until you can start working to end racism in the white community, instead of making excuses while trying to blame blacks or divert from the problems white racism causes to try making claims about other races, you will continue to be the problem. So how about whites such as yourself begin taking the responsibility you preach to others and start working to end racism in the white community?

Because that is the solution and you know it.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

He posts here on U.S. Message Board and doesn't bother to hide his racism just like many of the racists who post here do.

You're correct about IM2.

 

[fncceo]

And you all care enough to constantly whine about the imaginary discrimination that you believe is happening to white males and presumably females as well.

Is it your contention that females in this country have not, and by extension, and no longer suffer discrimination?

 

[themirrorthief]

You're here more than me. Whites like you want to pretend you don't know what the solution is and then want to press blacks to provide the solution to a problem those like you created and continue to perpetuate. You are the problem and until you can start working to end racism in the white community, instead of making excuses while trying to blame blacks or divert from the problems white racism causes to try making claims about other races, you will continue to be the problem. So how about whites such as yourself begin taking the responsibility you preach to others and start working to end racism in the white community?

Because that is the solution and you know it.

who is stopping you from going back to africa blacks in the majority there

 

[sparky]

The net effects of history’s injustices are staggering. According to statistics the NAACP examined, although Black people make up 13.4 percent of the population, they make up:

• 22 percent of fatal police shootings,
• 47 percent of wrongful conviction exonerations, and
• 35 percent of individuals executed by the death penalty.

More than 2.1 million Americans are incarcerated in jails and prisons, up from less than 200,000 in 1972,

How many were living below middle class standards?

~S~

 

[Lisa558]

I nearly died.

Thank G-d you survived.

By the grace of G-d I too survived an assault by five black youth, but it was stopped by someone G-d sent to save me just as the assault was beginning. It happened in a Democrat shithole city, btw.

 

[Lisa558]

I believe IM2 is using that particular example because that person is a member of this message board but he's hardly the only person violating the Civil Rights Act so here are some examples from the horse's mouth, as current as 2020:

E-RACE AND OTHER EEOC INITIATIVES​

Systemic​

• In March 2020, Porous Materials, a manufacturer in Ithaca, NY, must pay $93,000 in monetary relief and report any future harassment allegations directly to the EEOC to settle claims that it engaged in pervasive harassment based on race, sex and national origin, according to a recent EEOC lawsuit. The extreme bullying and harassment allegedly included a manager using racial slurs toward his employees, calling foreign workers “terrorists,” telling immigrants to leave America, and making unwanted sexual advances toward female employees. The EEOC further claims the owner of Porous Materials did nothing to put a stop to the harassment. EEOC v. Porous Materials, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-01099 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2020).
• In March 2020, Prewett Enterprises, Inc., doing business as B&P Enterprises, and Desoto Marine, LLC, rail services and disaster response companies, paid $250,000 and furnished other relief to settle a race harassment case brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Prewett and Desoto supervisors and managers subjected African American employees to daily harassment and humiliation because of their race by calling them racially offensive and derogatory names and assigned Black employees the more dangerous job duties. Under the two-year consent decree, the businesses will revise their anti-racial harassment policies; create an 800-hotline number for employees to report complaints about discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and conduct exit interviews of employees who leave the company. The decree also mandates training of employees and the reporting of any future complaints of race harassment to the EEOC. EEOC v. Prewett Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a B&P Enterprises, and Desoto Marine,LLC, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-213 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 18, 2020).
• In January 2020, Jacksonville Plumbers and Pipefitters Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust (JPPJATT), which sponsors an apprenticeship program that trains participants to work in the plumbing and pipefitting industries in Northern Florida, revised its selection process, paid $207,500 and provided other significant equitable relief to settle EEOC’s class race discrimination lawsuit which sought relief for applicants who allegedly were denied apprenticeship positions because they were Black. In addition to the monetary relief, the four-year consent decree provides for extensive injunctive relief to help secure a diverse workforce; requires JPPJATT to hire a consultant to review and revise its selection process and implement and train employees in the new process; enjoins JPPJATT from discriminating against Black applicants on the basis of race in the future; and requires the company to hold information sessions at locations in the Black community. EEOC v. Jacksonville Plumbers and Pipefitters Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust, Case No. 3:18-cv-862-J-32JRK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 2020).
• In January 2020, Falcon Foundry Company agreed to resolve a racial harassment class case which was filed against it by the Youngstown Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the EEOC. The NAACP filed an EEOC charge on behalf of some employees and the EEOC's investigation found that a top company official subjected employees to derogatory racial comments and that there was a noose hanging in the facility. The EEOC also found that Black and Hispanic employees were disciplined for violating company policies while Caucasian employees who violated the same policies were not disciplined. On these bases, the EEOC found that a class of individuals were harassed and discriminated against because of their race, Black; their national origin, Hispanic; or their association with a Black or Hispanic employee in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The company conducted an internal investigation, trained its employees, and terminated the company official to address the claims filed against it. Additionally, the EEOC, the NAACP and Falcon Foundry signed a conciliation agreement that requires Falcon Foundry to pay substantial monetary relief to identified victims; hold managers and supervisors accountable for discrimination in the workplace and provide ongoing training to all employees; revise its policies and procedures for dealing with discrimination; and report to the EEOC for the agreement's multi-year term.
• In November 2019, Janitorial Service Provider Diversified Maintenance Systems, LLC paid $750,000 and furnished significant equitable relief to settle a federal race discrimination, harassment and retaliation lawsuit. The complaint alleged that since at least January, 2012, Diversified engaged in an ongoing pattern or practice of race discrimination against African-American job applicants in Maryland, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia metropolitan areas by refusing to hire Black applicants for custodian, lead custodian or porter positions and racially harassing a Black janitorial supervisor in the presence of customers and employees. The lawsuit also alleged that when he complained, the company demoted the Black supervisor, changed his work assignments, hours, and conditions and then fired him. The 30-month consent decree enjoins Diversified from discriminating against or harassing anyone based on race or engaging in retaliation and requires the company to designate an internal monitor to ensure compliance with the consent decree. Additionally, Diversified must implement a targeted hiring plan that tracks the number and race of applicants, and reason(s) why they are not hired. It also must create a policy to prohibit harassment and retaliation and provide training on preventing discrimination, harassment and retaliation. EEOC v. Diversified Maintenance Systems, LLC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01835 (D. Md. settlement announced Nov. 25, 2019).
• In November 2019, a federal judge approved the settlement of the 2013 EEOC lawsuit challenging the way a discount retailer conducted criminal background checks of job applicants because the process allegedly discriminated against Black workers with criminal histories. In addition to paying $6 million, the company agreed to hire a criminologist to develop a new background check process that accounts for job applicants’ actual risk of recidivism. EEOC v. Dolgencorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General, Civil Action No. 13 C 4307 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2019).
• In November 2019, a federal judge approved a $1.2 million settlement resolving the EEOC’s racial harassment suit against Nabors Corporate Services Inc. and another Houston-based oil field services company. Nine Black employees and a White co-worker received payments. The EEOC lawsuit alleged that Black employees assigned to fracking and coiled tubing oilfield service operations in Pleasanton, Texas, were subjected to a hostile work environment based on race since at least 2012 and that Nabors and C&J Well Services Inc. retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment. Although they deny the allegations, the companies also agreed to provide the affected workers with neutral employment references; maintain social media and information policies that prohibit the use of email, software, or hardware or any company-owned devices to be used for racially offensive communications or similar misconduct; and maintain procedures that encourage workers to come forward with race bias complaints. EEOC v. Nabors Indus., Ltd. No. 5:16-cv-00758 (W.D. Tex. consent decree approved Nov. 12, 2019).
• In October 2019, Breakthru Beverage Illinois, LLC (BBI), a distributor of alcoholic beverages, agreed to pay $950,000 to resolve an investigation of race and national origin discrimination conducted by the EEOC. Based on its investigation, the EEOC had found reasonable cause to believe that BBI discriminated against Illinois sales employees by offering them account and territory assignments that, when accepted, resulted in national origin or race discrimination, which violates Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964. Pursuant to this settlement, BBI will The settlement provides monetary relief to the class identified by the EEOC and ensures the company will take proactive measures to prevent such discrimination from occurring in the future. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, BBI also will conduct anti-discrimination training for its Illinois sales force; put in place systems to further encourage diverse applicants for open positions; revise its anti-discrimination policy to expressly reference that it prohibits segregating or making assignments based on race and/or national origin and distribute the revised policy to its Illinois sales force; hire a monitor to track the demographics of employees applying for and receiving offers for specified Illinois sales positions; provide periodic reporting on the demographics of its Illinois sales force for the next two years; and post an internal notification to its Illinois employees of this resolution.
• In February 2019, the Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, IAFF agreed to pay $4.9 million to settle a race discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC's 2012 lawsuit against the union alleged that the union advocated for an unlawful promotional process that had a disparate impact on African-American promotional candidates even after it learned that the EEOC had received charges challenging the city’s promotion practices. EEOC v. Jacksonville Association of Firefighters, Local 122, IAFF, No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2019).
• In December 2017, Laquila Group Inc., a Brooklyn-based construction company, paid $625,000 into a class settlement fund and took measures to eliminate race bias and retaliation against black construction laborers. In its lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Laquila engaged in systemic discrimination against black employees as a class by subjecting them to racial harassment, including referring to them using the N-word, "gorilla," and similar epithets. The Commission also alleged that the company fired an employee who complained about the harassment. The consent decree also requires Laquila to set up a hotline for employees to report illegal discrimination, provide anti-discrimination training to its managers, adopt revised anti-discrimination policies and employee complaint procedures and report all worker harassment and retaliation complaints to the EEOC for the 42-month duration of the agreement. EEOC v. The Laquila Grp., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-05194 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree approved Dec. 1, 2017).
• In November 2017, after an extensive five-year, complicated systemic investigation and settlement efforts, the EEOC reached an agreement with Lone Star Community College covering recruitment, hiring and mentoring of African-American and Hispanic applicants and employees. The terms of the agreement were designed to enhance the College's commitment to the recruitment of African-American and Hispanics and to engage in meaningful monitoring of the College's efforts to reach its recruitment and hiring goals. The agreement included some novel relief, such as: implementation of a new applicant tracking system; establishing an advisory committee focused on the recruitment, development and retention of minority groups; hiring of recruitment firms; developing new interview protocol training; establishing a mentoring program for recently hired minority employees; and updating job descriptions for all college manager positions to require as a job component the diversity of its workforce.
• In August 2017, Ford Motor Company agreed to pay nearly $10.125 million to settle sex and race harassment investigation by the EEOC at two Ford plants in Chicago area. In its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that personnel at two Ford facilities in the Chicago area, the Chicago Assembly Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant, had subjected female and African-American employees to sexual and racial harassment. The EEOC also found that the company retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment or discrimination. In addition to the monetary relief, the conciliation agreement provides ensures that during the next five years, Ford will conduct regular training at the two Chicago-area facilities; continue to disseminate its anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and procedures to employees and new hires; report to EEOC regarding complaints of harassment and/or related discrimination; and monitor its workforce regarding issues of alleged sexual or racial harassment and related discrimination.
• In July 2017, Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC agreed, without admitting wrongdoing, to pay $10.5 million to a class of African-American and Hispanic workers the EEOC alleged it discriminated against by failing to hire because of their race and/or national origin in violation of Title VII. According to the consent decree, Bass Pro will engage in good faith efforts to increase diversity by reaching out to minority colleges and technical schools, participating in job fairs in communities with large minority populations and post job openings in publications popular among Black and Hispanic communities. Additionally, every six months for the next 42 months, Bass Pro is to report to the EEOC its hiring rates on a store-by-store basis. EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, Case No. 4:11-cv-03425 (S.D. Tex. consent decree filed July 24, 2017).
• In June 2017, the EEOC investigated a restaurant operating over 100 facilities in the Eastern U.S. involving issues of hiring discrimination against African Americans. The restaurant agreed to pay $9.6 million to class members as part of a conciliation agreement. Additionally, the restaurant will overhaul its hiring procedures and has agreed to institute practices aimed at meeting hiring targets consistent with the labor market in each of the locations in which it has facilities. The new hiring procedures include implementation of an extensive applicant tracking system that will better enable the EEOC and the company to assess whether the company is meeting the targeted hiring levels. The restaurant will also provide an annual report to EEOC detailing the company's efforts in complying with the agreement and its objectives over the term of the five-year agreement, including detailed hiring assessments for each facility covered by the agreement.
• In May 2017, Rosebud Restaurants agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against 13 restaurants in the Chicago area. The chain was charged with refusing to hire African-American applicants and having managers who used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans. The monetary award will be paid to African-American applicants who were denied jobs. Pursuant to a consent decree, the chain also agreed to hiring goals with the aim of having 11 percent of its future workforce be African American. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination. EEOC v. Rosebud Rest., No. 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).
• In April 2017, Sealy of Minnesota paid $175,000 to resolve a charge of racial harassment filed with the EEOC. An investigation by the EEOC's Minneapolis Area Office revealed that the mattress and box spring manufacturing company in St. Paul, Minn. subjected its Black and Hispanic employees to severe racial harassment in the form of KKK hoods, nooses, and racial slurs and jokes. The agency also found that the company discriminated against black and Hispanic employees in the selection of lead positions at the St. Paul facility. EEOC v. Sealy of Minn., (D. Minn. Apr. 20, 2017).
• In December 2016, Crothall Services Group, Inc., a nationwide provider of janitorial and facilities management services, settled an EEOC lawsuit by adopting significant changes to its record-keeping practices related to the use of criminal background checks. According to the EEOC's complaint, Crothall used criminal background checks to make hiring decisions without making and keeping required records that disclose the impact criminal history assessments have on persons identifiable by race, sex, or ethnic group, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. EEOC v. Crothall Servs. Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03812-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016).
• In August 2016, a magistrate judge reaffirmed that "African" has long been recognized as an acceptable class entitled to protection under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that the Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. The EEOC brought disparate impact and treatment claims based on race and national origin, and a retaliation claim for a white supervisor who stood up for the African workers and was fired several months before the test was instituted. Defendants moved for dismissal arguing (1) Africa is not a nation and so cannot serve as the basis of a national origin claim, (2) EEOC failed to allege any shared cultural or linguistic characteristics between the aggrieved individuals so they could not constitute a protected class; and (3) the EEOC's retaliation claim must be dismissed because EEOC failed to allege protected activity or the Defendants had knowledge of the white supervisor's motivations. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied in total. EEOC v. Columbine Health Sys. & New Mercer Commons, Civ. Action No. 15-cv-01597-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2016).
• In June 2016, the EEOC obtained a $350,000 settlement in its race discrimination lawsuit against defendant FAPS, Inc., a company located at Port Newark, N.J., involved in the processing for final sale of shipped automobiles. In this case, the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American available workforce in the Newark area. The agency further alleged that FAPS refused to hire qualified African-American candidates, including by telling them that no positions were available when in fact FAPS was hiring. Finally, the EEOC alleged that FAPS' employment application contained improper pre-employment medical inquiries in violation of the ADA. Besides the monetary compensation, the five year consent decree requires FAPS to meet substantial hiring goals for African-Americans; give hiring priority to rejected class members who are interested in working at the company; use recruiting methods designed to increase the African-American applicant pool; and hire an EEO coordinator to ensure compliance with Title VII. EEOC v. FAPS, Inc., C.A. No. No. 2:10-cv-03095 (D.N.J. June 15, 2016).
• In April 2015, Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and its associated apprenticeship school agreed to create a back pay fund for a group of minority sheet metal workers in partial settlement of race discrimination claims against the local union. Pursuant to the settlement, it is estimated that the union will pay approximately $12.7 million over the next five years and provide substantial remedial relief to partially resolve claims made against the union in 1991-2002. The trade union, which is responsible for sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey, allegedly discriminated against black and Hispanic journeypersons over a multi-year period in hiring and job assignments. An analysis of hours and wages showed African-American and Hispanic workers received fewer hours of work than their white co-workers during most of this same timeframe. This particular agreement covers from April 1991 through December 2002. EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Case No. 71 Civ. 2887 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2015).
• In December 2015, Hillshire Brands (formerly known as Sara Lee Corporation) agreed to pay $4 million to 74 workers at the now-shuttered Paris, Texas, plant, including the dozens of people who sought EEOC charges against Hillshire and other aggrieved workers identified by the EEOC and the plaintiffs. This resolution settles claims that the company subjected a class of Black employees to a hostile work environment that included racist graffiti and comments, that included the N-word and "boy." The company also agreed to implement training at all of its plants in a bid to end consolidated suits from the EEOC and former worker Stanley Beaty. The consent decree also requires Hillshire to implement anti-racism training and create a mechanism for employees at its existing plants to confidentially report instances of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The settlement also requires Hillshire to designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in racial bias or behavior related to it. EEOC v. Hillshire Brands Co. f/k/a Sara Lee Corp., No. 2:15-cv-01347 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15) and Beaty et al v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15).
• In October 2015, a federal judge held that the operators of an Indianapolis Hampton Inn in contempt for failing to comply with five different conditions settling the EEOC's class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the companies. The judge faulted Noble Management LLC and New Indianapolis Hotels for failing to: (1) properly post notices; (2) properly train management employees; (3) keep employment records; (4) institute a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees; and (5) reinstate three former housekeeping employees. The judge also faulted Noble and New Indianapolis Hotels for comingling of medical records in employee personnel files. As background, the EEOC filed suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race discrimination. The agency also charged that the hotel paid lower wages to Black housekeepers, excluded Black housekeeping applicants on a systemic basis, and failed to maintain records required by law in violation of Title VII. In September 2012, the judge entered a five-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's litigation against the hotel operators. The decree provided $355,000 in monetary relief to approximately 75 African-American former housekeeping employees and applicants and required training, notice posting, reinstatement of three former housekeeping employees, a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees and ordered that the defendants maintain employment-related records. The court also enjoined the operators from race discrimination and retaliation in the future. In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. Defendants were also ordered to: (1) provide monthly reporting to the EEOC on compliance with the new hiring procedure, recordkeeping and posting; (2) pay fines for late reporting; (3) allow random inspections by the EEOC subject to a fine, for failure to grant access; (4) pay fines for failure to post, destroying records or failing to distribute employment applications; (5) provide EEOC with any requested employment records within 15 days of a request; (6) cease comingling medical records; and (7) train management employees. The posting and training provisions of the Decree were also extended by two years. In November 2015, the judge awarded $50,515 in fees and $6,733.76 in costs to the EEOC because the "Defendants willfully violated the explicit terms of the Consent Decree and repeatedly failed to comply with it [.]" EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC, C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01234-WTL-DKL (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2015) (fee ruling).
• In September 2015, BMW Manufacturing Co. settled for $1.6 million and other relief an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company's criminal background check policy disproportionately affects black logistics workers at a South Carolina plant. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that after learning the results of the criminal background checks around July 2008, BMW denied plant access to 88 logistics employees, resulting in their termination from the previous logistics provider and denial of hire by the new logistics services provider for work at BMW. Of those 88 employees, 70 were Black. Some of the logistics employees had been employed at BMW for several years, working for the various logistics services providers utilized by BMW since the opening of the plant in 1994. Under the terms of a consent decree signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the $1.6 million will be shared by 56 known claimants and other black applicants the EEOC said were shut out of BMW's Spartanburg, S.C., plant when the company switched to a new logistics contractor. In addition to the monetary relief, the company will provide each claimant who wishes to return to the facility an opportunity to apply for a logistics position. BMW will also notify other applicants who have previously expressed interest in a logistics position at the facility of their right to apply for work, the decree states. BMW has implemented a new criminal background check policy and will continue to operate under that policy throughout the three-year term of the decree. The company is expressly enjoined from "utilizing the criminal background check guidelines" challenged by the EEOC in its lawsuit, the decree states. The agreement also imposes on BMW notice-posting, training, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co., No. 7:13-cv-01583 (D.S.C. consent decree filed Sep. 8, 2015).
• In August 2015, Target Corp. settled for $2.8 million an EEOC charge that the retailer's former tests for hiring for professional jobs discriminated against applicants based on race, sex and disability. Three assessments used by Target disproportionately screened out female and racial minority applicants, and a separate psychological assessment was a pre-employment medical examination that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had charged. Target also violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to maintain the records sufficient to gauge the impact of its hiring procedures. Under the three-year conciliation agreement, reached before any lawsuit was filed, Target has discontinued the use of the tests and made changes to its applicant tracking system, the EEOC said. About 4,500 unsuccessful applicants affected by the alleged discriminatory tests now are eligible to file claims for monetary relief.
• In March 2015, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling company agreed to settle for $12.26 million the EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide. According to a complaint filed by the EEOC the same day as the proposed decree, Patterson-UTI had engaged in patterns or practices of hostile work environment harassment, disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation against Hispanic, Latino, Black, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander and other minority workers at its facilities in Colorado and other states. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and report on the company's compliance with certain training, management evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015).
• In January 2015, Skanska USA Building, Inc., a building contractor headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., paid $95,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. Skanska served as the general contractor on the Methodist Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, where the incidents in this lawsuit took place. The class of Black employees worked for C-1, Inc. Construction Company, a minority-owned subcontractor for Skanska. Skanska awarded a subcontract to C-1 to provide buck hoist operations for the construction site and thereafter supervised all C-1 employees while at the work site. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially offensive comments and physical assault. EEOC v. Shanska USA Building, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015).
• In December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the staffing firms had discriminated against four Black temporary employees and a class of Black and non-Hispanic job applicants by failing to place or refer them for employment. The four temporary employees said while seeking employment through the company's Memphis area facilities, they witnessed Hispanic applicants getting preferential treatment in hiring and placement. EEOC v. New Koosharem Corp., No. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. Tenn. consent decree filed Dec. 5, 2014).
• In December 2014, three related well-servicing companies agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of verbal abuse of minority employees. The EEOC complaint alleged that J&R employees regularly used racial slurs to refer to Black, Hispanic and Native American employees. Employees of these racial groups on company rigs regularly heard racist terms and demeaning remarks about green cards and deportation, the EEOC complaint said. Several individuals complained to management, but their complaints were minimized or ignored, the complaint alleged. For example, an area supervisor responded to employee complaints by telling the complainants they could quit or by saying that he was sick of everyone coming to him and that everyone simply needed to do their jobs. In addition, the complaint stated that several men were demoted or fired after taking their complaints of discrimination to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services' Labor Standards Division. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp., No. 13-cv-00198 (D. Wyo. consent decree filed Dec. 1, 2014).
• In November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. Under a three-year consent decree signed Nov. 10 by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, ACM Services Inc. will pay a combined $110,000 to the two Hispanic female workers who first brought the allegations to the EEOC's attention and will establish a class fund of $305,000 for other potential claimants to be identified by the agency. According to the EEOC, the company has relied exclusively on "word-of-mouth recruitment practices" for field laborer positions, with the intent and effect of restricting the recruitment of Black and female applicants. ACM also subjected the two charging parties to harassment based on sex, national origin and race, and it retaliated against them for opposing the mistreatment-and against one of them based on her association with Black people-by firing them, the commission alleged. The agreement applies to all ACM facilities and locations nationwide and has extra-territorial application to the extent permitted by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the decree requires the company to set numerical hiring goals for its field laborer positions, recruit Black and female applicants via print and Internet advertisements and report to the EEOC regarding its attainment of the numerical hiring goals and other settlement terms. EEOC v. ACM Servs., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-02997 (D. Md. consent decree filed Nov. 10, 2014).
• In November 2014, Battaglia Distributing Corporation paid $735,000 to a group of current and former African-American employees. In this case, the EEOC alleged that the Battaglia tolerated an egregious race-based hostile work environment, requiring African-American dock workers to endure harassment that included racial slurs (including the "N" word). Among other relief provided under the decree, Battaglia also will provide its managers with training on Title VII and report regularly to the EEOC on any complaints it has received, as well as provide other data to demonstrate that it has not retaliated against any of the participants in the litigation. EEOC v. Battaglia Distrib. Corp., No. 13-cv-5789 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 10, 2014).
• In October 2014, Prestige Transportation Service L.L.C., a Miami company that provides transportation services to airline personnel to and from Miami International Airport, paid $200,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, in connection with actions allegedly committed under different ownership. The EEOC charged in its suit that Prestige's predecessor company, Airbus Alliance Inc., repeatedly instructed its human resource manager to not hire African-American applicants because they were "trouble" and "would sue the company." EEOC v. Prestige Transp. Service L.L.C., No. 1:13-cv-20684(JEM) (S.D. Fla. consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2014).
• In September 2014, McCormick & Schmick's settled a 2008 EEOC lawsuit, alleging a pattern or practice of race discrimination against African-American job applicants by refusing to hire them for front-of-the-house positions and by denying equal work assignments because of their race. The consent decree established a claims fund of $1.3 million and provides substantial injunctive relief, including goals for hiring of Black job applicants for front-of-the-house positions, targeted recruitment efforts, and extensive self-assessment of hiring and work assignment practices to ensure non-discrimination and compliance with the terms of the consent decree. McCormick & Schmick's also must designate an outside monitor to oversee compliance with the consent decree and submit reports to the EEOC. EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. and McCormick and Schmick Restaurant Corporation, No. WMN-09-cv-984 (D. Md. Sep. 12, 2014).
• In September 2013, U-Haul agreed to pay $750,000 to eight African-American current and former employees and to provide other relief to settle a race and retaliation discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Black employees were subjected to racial slurs and other racially offensive comments by their White supervisor, at U-Haul's Memphis facility. The EEOC's complaint charged that the supervisor regularly referred to Black employees with the "N" word and other derogatory slurs. The suit further alleged that the company engaged in retaliation by firing one employee when he complained of racial harassment to the company president. Under the two-year consent decree, U-Haul Company of Tennessee must maintain an anti-discrimination policy prohibiting race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation, and provide mandatory training to all employees regarding the policy. Additionally, the marketing company president will receive training on race discrimination and on obligations to report race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation. Finally, the company will provide written reports to the EEOC regarding any race discrimination or racial harassment complaints by employees. EEOC v. U-Haul Co. Int'l & U-Haul Co. of Tenn., No. 2:11-cv-02844 (W.D. Tenn. Sep. 25, 2013).
• In September 2013, a Kentucky coal mining company paid $245,000 to 19 total applicants and amend its hiring practices to settle a racial discrimination suit brought by the EEOC. River View Coal LLC, a unit of Alliance Resource Partners LP, also will have to regularly report to the EEOC on its hiring practices for two years to escape the suit, which alleged that the company refused to hire a class of African-American applicants for coal mining jobs at its Waverly, Ky., location since 2008. The consent decree also requires River View to refrain from any future racial discrimination in its hiring procedures. EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC, No. 4:11-cv-00117(JHM)(HBB) (W.D. Ky. Sep. 26, 2013).
• In December 2012, a South Dallas, TX mill agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of 14 Black employees to settle an EEOC race discrimination suit alleging that the mill exposed Black employees to violent, racist graffiti and racial slurs by co-workers, such as "KKK," swastikas, Confederate flags, "white power" and other racist terms, including "die, n----r, die," as well as the display of nooses at an employee workstation. Black employees alleged that the supervisors allowed the behavior to continue unchecked. The consent decree permanently enjoins the company from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and requires the company to enact a graffiti abatement policy and undergo annual reviews of its compliance for two years EEOC v. Rock-Tenn Services Co., No. 3:10-cv-01960 (N.D. Tex. filed Sep. 29, 2012).
• In November 2012, a federal court ordered Caldwell Freight Lines, a now defunct company, to pay $120,000 to settle a race discrimination complaint stemming from its alleged refusal to hire Black applicants to work on its loading dock even though it is no longer in business. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, 51 African American applicants sought work with Caldwell Freight and none was hired even though many had previous dock experience and were qualified for the positions. An EEOC investigation revealed that the company hired no Black dock workers during the period studied and that one high-level manager allegedly said he "didn't want any lacks on the dock." Under the terms of the consent decree, if the company resumes operations, it will have to implement an anti-discrimination policy and report to the EEOC all discrimination complaints and information regarding its hiring practices during the term of the decree. EEOC v. Caldwell Freight Lines, Case No. 5:11CV00134 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2012).
  [*]In October 2012, a federal district court in Texas ordered AA Foundries Inc. to take specific measures to prevent racial harassment of Black employees at its San Antonio plant following a $200,000 jury verdict finding the company liable for race discrimination under Title VII. According to the EEOC, evidence at trial indicated that a White supervisor used "the N word" in reference to Black employees, called male Black employees "motherfucking boys," posted racially tinged materials in an employee break room, and accused Black employees of "always stealing and wanting welfare." After several employees filed racial harassment charges with the EEOC, a noose was displayed in the workplace. When some employees complained, the supervisor allegedly replied the noose was "no big deal" and that workers who complained were "too sensitive." Additionally, at trial, he also admitted it did not bother him to hear racially derogatory language in the workplace. In a judgment entered Oct. 9, the district court upheld the jury verdict that AA Foundries must pay punitive damages of $100,000 to former employee Christopher Strickland, $60,000 to former employee Leroy Beal, and $40,000 to former employee Kenneth Bacon. Because trial evidence also showed that AA Foundries lacked effective internal procedures to handle discrimination complaints, it must conduct at least one hour of equal employment opportunity training for all employees within 60 days of the court's Oct. 9 order. The company must distribute copies of its revised written anti-harassment policy to all current and future employees and post the policy in the break room of its San Antonio manufacturing facility. Every employee shall be notified of the procedure for initiating racial harassment or other bias complaints, including notice of their right to file EEOC charges if the company does not resolve their complaint. EEOC v. AA Foundries Inc., No. 11-792 (W.D. Tex. judgment and injunction entered Oct. 9, 2012).
  [*]In September 2012, two California-based trucking firms agreed to settle for $630,000 an EEOC lawsuit alleging one company violated Title VII by permitting the harassment of African American, Latino, and East Indian workers and by otherwise discriminating based on race, national origin, and religion. In its original complaint, EEOC alleged that since at least 2003, management officials and employees at Scully Distribution referred to Black drivers as "*******," East Indian drivers as "Taliban" and "camel jockeys," and a Latino manager as a "****." EEOC also charged Scully gave non-White drivers less favorable job assignments than their White counterparts. EEOC claimed Scully also fired one of the three employees who filed EEOC charges complaining about the alleged harassment in retaliation for his protected activity. Scully denied all of EEOC's allegations, but it and its successor Ryder System Inc. agreed to resolve the suit. EEOC v. Scully Distribution Servs. Inc., No. 11-cv-08090 (C.D. Cal. proposed consent decree filed Sep. 25, 2012).
  [*]In August 2012, a Tampa, Fla.-based environmental services company agreed to settle a race discrimination and harassment case brought by the EEOC and eleven intervening plaintiffs for $2,750,000 and other relief. In the lawsuit, EEOC alleged that the harassment of African American employees included multiple displays of nooses, the repeated use of the "N-word," and physical threats. The EEOC also claimed that four White employees were harassed by their White co-workers because they associated with African-American employees. Two African-American employees also alleged they were fired because of their race and two White employees asserted they were fired for engaging in protected activity and in retaliation for associating with African-American employees. At summary judgment, the district court denied in part the company's motion, stating that the company ignored both the extreme symbolism of a noose and that a reasonable jury could conclude that the worksite had at least some racial tension given the other nooses, threats, and racial epithets that each African-American employee experienced, and that the noose was intended to intimidate all African-Americans. The court also found that a reasonable jury could decide that Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent or remedy the harassment since it did not distribute its written policy forbidding racial harassment to its employees, post it at the job-site, or train the employees about what constitutes harassment and how to report it. The court, however, determined that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims brought on behalf of the White employees because injury must be personal and thus a White employee cannot sue for harassment of African-American employees that the White employee happened to see. Lastly, intervening Plaintiff provided direct evidence that the supervisor who fired him did so because of his race (through the supervisor's comment that he could get rid of "that . . . ******. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110149 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2011). Although the company denied liability for the harassment, the three-year consent decree enjoins the company from engaging in further retaliation, race discrimination, or racial harassment, including associational bias. The company also must revise its anti-discrimination policy; provide employee training on the revised policy; and develop a procedure for investigating complaints of race discrimination and harassment and evaluating supervisors' compliance with the revised anti-discrimination policy. EEOC v. WRS Infrastructure and Env't Inc. d/b/a WRS Compass, No. 1:09-cv-4272 (N.D. Ill. consent decree filed Aug. 23, 2012).
  [*]In June 2012, Yellow Transportation Inc. and YRC Inc. agreed to settle for $11 million an EEOC suit alleging that the trucking companies permitted the racial harassment of Black employees at a now-closed Chicago Ridge, Ill., facility. The proposed consent decree would settle both EEOC's suit and a private suit filed in 2008 by 14 Black employees under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), which were consolidated for purposes of settlement. In its complaint, the EEOC claimed that Black employees at the Chicago Ridge facility, which closed in 2009, were subjected to multiple incidents of hangman's nooses and racist graffiti, comments, and cartoons. EEOC claimed that Yellow and YRC also subjected Black employees to harsher discipline and closer scrutiny than their White counterparts and gave Black employees more difficult and time-consuming work assignments. Although numerous Black employees complained about these conditions, Yellow and YRC failed to act to correct the problems, EEOC alleged. The court granted preliminary approval of a proposed consent decree, but it must grant final approval following a fairness hearing before the decree takes effect. EEOC v. Yellow Transp. Inc., No. 09 CV 7693 (N.D. Ill. preliminary approval granted June 28, 2012).
  [*]In January 2012, Pepsi Beverages Company, formerly known as Pepsi Bottling Group, agreed in a post-investigation conciliation to pay $3.13 million and provide training and job offers to victims of the former criminal background check policy to resolve an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination in hiring. "The EEOC's investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded Black applicants from permanent employment. Under Pepsi's former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense." Additionally, "Pepsi's former policy also denied employment to applicants from employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses. The use of arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not relevant for the job, because it can limit the employment opportunities of applicants or workers based on their race or ethnicity."
  [*]In December 2011, a New York City retail-wholesale fish market agreed to pay $900,000 and institute anti-discrimination measures to settle an EEOC lawsuit charging it with creating a hostile work environment for Black and African male employees. The lawsuit alleged that management at the company's Brooklyn facility routinely subjected more than 30 Black and African male loaders and drivers to sexual and racial harassment and retaliated against employees who complained. The harassment was both physical and verbal and included offensive comments based on race and national origin such as "******" and "African bastard" as well as explicit sexual expressions. The Commission also alleged that the company engaged in retaliation against workers who joined in the complaint. In addition to the monetary relief, M. Slavin agreed to submit to 5 years of monitoring by the EEOC; retain an independent EEO coordinator to investigate complaints; conduct one-on-one training for the worst harassers; and provide annual training for all staff. EEOC v. M. Slavin & Sons Ltd., No. 09-5330 (E.D.N.Y. filed consent decree 12/15/11).
  [*]In December 2010, Roadway Express, a less-than-truckload motor carrier with terminals throughout North America, settled the claims of two lawsuits alleging racial harassment of Black employees and race discrimination in terms and conditions of employment at two Illinois facilities. The claims included: (1) awarding Black employees less favorable assignments (both terminals); (2) assigning them more difficult and demanding work (both terminals); (3) enforcing break times more stringently (Chicago Heights); (4) subjecting their work to heightened scrutiny (Chicago Heights); and (5) disciplining them for minor misconduct (both terminals). Roadway also assigned Chicago Heights employees to segregated work groups. The 5-year decree, which applies to Roadway and YRC, Roadway's identity after it merged with Yellow Transportation, includes $10 million in monetary relief, $8.5 million to be paid upon preliminary approval of the decree and the remainder in three subsequent installments due on or before November 1 of 2011, 2012, and 2013. In addition to prohibiting race discrimination and retaliation against Black employees at YRC's Chicago Heights facility, the decree also requires YRC to provide all Chicago Heights employees annual training on racial harassment and race discrimination and engage a Work Assignment Consultant and a Disciplinary Practice Consultant to assist it in reviewing and revising the company's work assignment and disciplinary policies and practices at the Chicago facility. EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc., and YRC, Inc., Nos. 06-CV-4805 and 08-CV-5555 and Bandy v. Roadway Express, Inc., and YRC, Inc., No. 10-CV-5304 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2010).
  [*]In October 2010, Austin Foam Plastics, Inc., (AFP) a producer and distributor of corrugated box and cushion packaging, agreed to pay $600,000 to resolve a number of racial and sexual harassment charges. In pertinent part, the EEOC alleged that Black employees at AFP were subjected to intimidation, ridicule, insults, racially offensive comments and jokes, and cartoons and images that denigrated African-Americans. White employees and managers regularly emailed racially derogatory jokes, cartoons, and other materials to coworkers, and posted racially offensive photographs on the bulletin board outside the human resources office. They also engaged in threatening and intimidating conduct toward Black employees, such as tampering with the brake lines and air hoses of one CP's truck. The 2-year consent decree also enjoins race and sex (male) discrimination under Title VII, as well as retaliation. Defendant will submit to EEOC an EEO policy that prohibits race and sex discrimination and retaliation. Defendant will file annual audit reports with the EEOC summarizing each complaint of race or sex (male) discrimination, or retaliation, it receives at its Pfluggerville, Texas location and its disposition. EEOC v. Austin Foam Plastics, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-00180 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2010).
  [*]In September 2010, a mineral company agreed to pay $440,000 and other relief to settle a class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. Allegedly, the company disciplined an African-American quality control supervisor for having facial hair and using a cell phone during work, while Caucasian employees were not reprimanded for similar conduct. In addition to management subjecting the Black supervisor to heightened and unfair scrutiny, the company moved his office to the basement, while White employees holding the same position were moved to higher floors. Other African-American employees were subjected to racial harassment, such as a White supervisor placing a hangman's noose on a piece of machinery. EEOC v. Mineral Met, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-02199 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2010).
  [*]In August 2010, the EEOC and the largest commercial roofing contractor in New York state settled for $1 million an EEOC suit alleging the company discriminated against a class of Black workers through verbal harassment, denials of promotion, and unfair work assignments. According to the lawsuit, EEOC alleged from at least 1993 to the present, a White foreman repeatedly used racial slurs toward Black workers, that the company assigned Black employees to the most difficult, dirty, and least desirable jobs, that the roofing contractor systematically excluded Black employees from promotion opportunities, and that the company retaliated against those who complained. Additionally, nooses were displayed and portable toilets featured racially offensive graffiti with swastikas and "KKK" references at the job sites, EEOC alleged. Although it admitted no wrongdoing and said that it settled the case for financial reasons, the company agreed to hire an equal employment opportunity coordinator to provide employee EEO training, monitor future race discrimination complaints, and file periodic reports with EEOC regarding hiring, layoffs, and promotions. EEOC v. Elmer W. Davis Inc., No. 07-CV-06434 (W.D.N.Y. consent decree filed Aug. 10, 2010).
  [*]In December 2009, a national grocery chain paid $8.9 million to resolve three lawsuits collectively alleging race, color, national origin and retaliation discrimination, affecting 168 former and current employees. According to the lawsuits, minority employees were repeatedly subjected to derogatory comments and graffiti. Blacks were termed "n-----s" and Hispanics termed "s---s;" offensive graffiti in the men's restroom, which included racial and ethnic slurs, depictions of lynchings, swastikas, and White supremacist and anti-immigrant statements, was so offensive that several employees would relieve themselves outside the building or go home at lunchtime rather than use the restroom. Black and Hispanic employees also were allegedly given harder work assignments and were more frequently and severely disciplined than their Caucasian co-workers. Lastly, EEOC asserted that dozens of employees complained about the discriminatory treatment and harassment and were subsequently given the harder job assignments, were passed over for promotion and even fired as retaliation. EEOC v. Albertsons LLC, Civil Action No. 06-cv-01273, No. 08-cv-00640, and No. 08-cv-02424 (D. Colo 2009).
  [*]In May 2009, an Illinois construction company agreed to pay $630,000 to settle a class action race discrimination suit, alleging that it laid off Black employees after they had worked for the company for short periods of time, but retained White employees for long-term employment. The three-year consent decree also prohibits the company from engaging in future discrimination and retaliation; requires that it implement a policy against race discrimination and retaliation, as well as a procedure for handling complaints of race discrimination and retaliation; mandates that the company provide training to employees regarding race discrimination and retaliation; and requires the company to provide periodic reports to the EEOC regarding layoffs and complaints of discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v. Area Erectors, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-02339 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2009).
  [*]In August 2008, a tobacco retail chain agreed to pay $425,000 and provide significant remedial relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit on behalf of qualified Black workers who were denied promotion to management positions. The three-year consent decree also requires the company, which has stores in Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi, to train all managers and supervisors on preventing race discrimination and retaliation; create job descriptions for manager and assistant manager positions that outline the qualifications for each position; develop a written promotion policy that will include the procedures by which employees will be notified of promotional opportunities; report assistant manager and manager vacancies, the name and race of all applicants for the position, and the name of the successful candidate; report the names of all African Americans who are either hired or promoted to manager or assistant manager positions; and report any complaints of race discrimination and describe its investigation in response to the complaint. EEOC v. Tobacco Superstores, Inc., No. 3:05 CV 00218 (E.D. Ark. settled Aug. 2008).
  [*]In July 2008, a Chicago-based leading chemical manufacturer of high-quality surfactants, polymers, chemical specialties and cosmetic preservatives paid $175,000 to settle a class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the lawsuit, a class of African American employees had been subjected to race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation for complaining about the misconduct. The company agreed to conduct EEO training and refrain from future acts of discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v. McIntyre Group, Ltd., No. 07 C 5458 (N.D. Ill. settled July, 2008).
  [*]In May 2008, the EEOC obtained a settlement of $1.65 million in a racial harassment case filed against a general contractor and its subsidiaries on behalf of a class of African American employees who were subjected to egregious racial harassment at a construction site in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The harassment included a life size noose made of heavy rope hung from a beam in a class member's work area for at least 10 days before it was removed; the regular use of the "N-word"; racially offensive comments made to Black individuals, including "I think everybody should own one" and "Black people are no good and you can't trust them" and "Black people can't read or write." Additionally, racist graffiti was written in portable toilets, with terms such as "coon"; "if u not White u not right"; "White power"; "KKK"; and "I love the Ku Klux Klan." Additional remedies were injunctive relief enjoining each defendant from engaging in racial harassment or retaliation; anti-discrimination training; the posting of a notice about the settlement; and reporting complaints of racial harassment to the EEOC for monitoring. EEOC v. Conectiv,et al. Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00389 (E.D. Pa. settled May 5, 2008).
  [*]In August 2007, a renowned French chef agreed to pay $80,000 to settle claims that his upscale Manhattan restaurant discriminated against Hispanic workers and Asian employees from Bangladesh in job assignments. The aggrieved employees alleged that they were restricted to "back of the house" positions such as busboys and runners and refused promotions to "front of the house" positions such as captains, which instead went to Caucasian workers with less experience and seniority. They also alleged that they were subjected to racial insults and harassment when they complained. EEOC v. Restaurant Daniel, No. 07-6845 (S.D.N.Y. August 2, 2007).
  [*]In June 2007, EEOC obtained $500,000 from a South Lyon, Mich., steel tubing company, which, after purchasing the assets of its predecessor company, allegedly refused to hire a class of African American former employees of the predecessor. Though the company hired 52 of its predecessor's former employees, none of them were Black. EEOC charged that many of the White employees hired had significantly less experience than the Black former employees represented by the EEOC, and in some cases had actually been trained by the same African American employees who were denied hire. The suit also included other Black applicants who were denied hire in favor of less qualified White applicants. EEOC v. Michigan Seamless Tube, No. 05-73719 (E.D. Mich. June 8, 2007).
  [*]In February 2007, EEOC obtained a $5 million settlement resolving two consolidated class action employment discrimination lawsuits against a global engine systems and parts company, asserting that the company engaged in illegal discrimination against African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians at its Rockford and Rockton, Ill., facilities with respect to pay, promotions and training. EEOC v. Woodward Governor Company, No. 06-cv-50178 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2007).
  [*]In August 2006, the Commission settled this Title VII lawsuit alleging that since at least 1991, defendant, a manufacturer of precision metal-formed products and assemblies, failed to hire women and Blacks into laborer and machine operator positions at its plant because of their sex and race for $940,000. The complaint also alleged that defendant failed to retain employment applications. The 39-month consent decree requires defendant to consider all female and Black applicants on the same basis as all other applicants, to engage in good faith efforts to increase recruitment of female and Black applicants, and to submit semiannual reports to EEOC that include applicant flow and hiring data by race and sex.EEOC v. S&Z Tool Co., Inc., No. 1:03CV2023 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2006).
  [*]In August 2006, a major national public works contractor paid $125,000 to settle race, gender, national origin and religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuits brought by EEOC on behalf of a class of Black, Asian, and female electricians who were subjected to daily harassment due to their race, national origin, and/or gender by their immediate foremen, racial and otherwise offensive graffiti in plain sight at the workplace, and retaliation for complaining. EEOC v. Amelco, No. C 05-2492 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006).
  [*]In June 2005, EEOC obtained an $8 million dollar settlement from Ford Motor Co. and a major national union in a class race discrimination lawsuit, alleging that a test had a disproportionately negative impact on African American hourly employees seeking admission to an apprenticeship program. See http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-1-05.html
  [*]In November 2004, the Commission settled for $50 million a lawsuit filed against Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of a class of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and women allegedly subjected to discrimination in recruitment, hiring, assignment, promotion and discharge based on race, color, national origin, and sex. Abercrombie & Fitch also agreed to improve hiring, recruitment, training, and promotions policies; revise marketing material; and select a Vice President of Diversity and diversity recruiters. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. CV-04-4731 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2004).
  [*]In November 2002, the Commission settled a lawsuit with the Las Vegas hotel for more than $1 million on behalf of African American and Hispanic applicants who were allegedly were not hired for server positions because of their race. The hotel also agreed to conduct antidiscrimination training and implement procedures to investigate discrimination complaints. EEOC v. The Mirage Hotel & Casino, No. CV S-02-1554 RLH - LRL (D.Nev. Nov. 27, 2002).

Youth@ Work​

• In September 2006, the Korean owners of a fast food chain in Torrance, California agreed to pay $5,000 to resolve a Title VII lawsuit alleging that a 16-year old biracial girl, who looked like a fair-skinned African American, was refused an application for employment because of her perceived race (Black). According to the EEOC lawsuit, after a day at the beach with her Caucasian friends, the teen was asked if she would request an application on her friend's behalf since the friend was a little disheveled in appearance. The owner refused to give the teen an application and told her the store was not hiring anymore despite the presence of a "Help Wanted" sign in the window. After consultation among the friends, another White friend entered the store and was immediately given an application on request. EEOC v. Quiznos, No. 2:06-cv-00215-DSFJC (C.D. Cal. settled Sept. 22, 2006).
• In December 2005, EEOC resolved this Title VII lawsuit alleging that a fast food conglomerate subjected a Black female employee and other non-White restaurant staff members (some of them minors) to a hostile work environment based on race. The racial harassment included a male shift leader's frequent use of "******" and his exhortations that Whites were a superior race. Although the assistant manager received a letter signed by eight employees complaining about the shift leader's conduct, the shift leader was exonerated and the Black female employee who complained was fired. The consent decree provided $255,000 in monetary relief: $105,000 to Charging Party and $150,000 for a settlement fund for eligible claimants as determined by EEOC. EEOC v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Carl's Jr. Restaurant, No. CV-05-01978 FCD PAW (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2005).
• In October 2005, an elevator manufacturing company agreed to pay $75,000 to an 18-year-old African American welder and $100,000 to 12 other Black employees in an EEOC suit alleging racial harassment of the teen and a pattern of discrimination against African American employees at the Middleton, Tennessee facility. Harassment of the teen included calling him a "Black [S.O.B.]," telling racially offensive jokes, hiding his safety gloves, placing stink bombs under his workstation, and telling him that the vending machines do not take "crack money." EEOC v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Manufacturing, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-1160-T (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 2005).
• In September 2005, EEOC obtained a $34,000 default judgment on behalf of a then 19-year old Black former employee of a manufacturing plant in Illinois who alleged that he had been subjected to derogatory remarks and racial epithets, such as "what are you supposed to be, some kind of special ******?" or name-calling such as "pencil dick," by his supervisor. The supervisor was the father of the company's president and he insisted that the "n-word" is Latin for "Black person." When the teen complained to the company president about the offensive remarks, the supervisor's son replied that he could not reprimand his father. EEOC v. Midwest Rack Manufacturing, Inc., No. 05-194-WDS (S.D. Ill. Sep. 21, 2005).
• In March 2004, a Ruby Tuesday franchise agreed to pay $32,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit, alleging race discrimination in hiring against two African American college students who were refused employment as food servers in favor of several Caucasian applicants with less or similar experience and qualifications. According to the lawsuit, when the students met with the store manager, he briefly reviewed their applications and told them they were "not what he was looking for." EEOC v. RT KCMO, LLC d/b/a Ruby Tuesday's, No.03-CV-00983-FJG (W.D. Mo. settled March 30, 2004).
• In February 2004, the Commission settled a racial and sexual harassment lawsuit for $67,000 plus injunctive relief on behalf of two Black young female employees who alleged that they were subjected to unwelcome touching, degrading sexual and racial comments, and were shown a drawing of a Ku Klux Klan member by their supervisor. After one of the women complained, her hours were cut and she was eventually terminated. The other employee was forced to resign. EEOC v. Planet Wings of Rockland, Inc., No. 03 CV 5430 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2004).

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES​

Hiring​

• In February 2020, a northern Indiana vending and coffee service provider paid $22,000 and provided other significant relief to resolve an EEOC race discrimination lawsuit alleging that the company discriminated against a Black applicant in filling vending service representative positions. EEOC v. Coffel Vending Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-00596-PPS-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2020)

​

[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).​

​

(other 75% of cases can be seen at the link at the beginning of the article)​

Return to top​

​

We could also post examples of bigotry conducted BY blacks against Koreans, whites, and Jews. Your long diatribe means nothing other than there is some bigotry against blacks, as well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My stereotype is that anybody with a stupid ghetto Black ethnic name is probably worthless. I could have been wrong a couple of times

For many on the racist right, it can be as simple as not having to see a black face in the workplace, no matter how qualified the black candidate.

 

[IM2]

This thread is not about what right wing racists think about blacks. This is a thread that shows that blacks who do everything you guys claim we need to do still face obstruction because of white racism. We are talking about people who studied hard, got good grades, graduated high school AT THE TOP, went to college, studied hard, got good grades, graduated, the faced white racism as they tried to get employed. They did not lie down and play victim like the lie you tell yourselves, they kept pushing on until they got hired and were hired to jobs that were beneath their level of knowledge because of racism. But they pressed on while watching less qualified whites get the better paying jobs.

This is my experience and the experience of millions of blacks in this country. There is no black victimhood, that's fiction made up by white racists to satisfy their cognitive dissonance. It's time right wing whites in here started to do the work needed to end white racism in this country. It is not black folks job to solve a problem created by whites.

You don't have long to get it done. This nation is getting browner. Whites are not 70 percent of the population anymore. You are 60 percent and in a few years, you will be a minority. So you better get it done before some of these young folk hit the ruling age because young people of color, and I mean, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders are not going to listen to whites talking about gradualism anymore.

 

[IM2]

Well first of all it's absolutely horrible that you endured a sexual assault of that nature and I'm sorry that you were subjected to that. Having been a crime victim does a lot regarding coloring your view of the world.

Are you aware of the fact that Black people in the U.S. were not allowed to hold white people accountable for crimes they actually committed against them, let alone broad brush the entire white race? I'm asking because I for one, certainly understand why you feel the way you do, I'm just curious as to whether or not you feel it's fair to stereotype an entire race of people because of the criminal acts committed against you by some?

Yeah. They get to paint us with a broad brush, but cry not all whites when we specify that we are talking about whites who practice racism.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

For many on the racist right, it can be as simple as not having to see a black face in the workplace, no matter how qualified the black candidate.

And for all leftist vermin, it's the intellectual masturbation of believing you are a good person because you'd rather have an unqualified POC than a brilliant white person working for you. In my case, it was in a critical patient care area of a big hospital. You monkeys who'd rather have your SJW brownie points than have your health care providers being qualified get what you deserve! Wish I could be there to see it!

 

[IM2]

who is stopping you from going back to africa blacks in the majority there

The same thing stopping you from moving back to Europe.

 

[IM2]

And for all leftist vermin, it's the intellectual masturbation of believing you are a good person because you'd rather have an unqualified POC than a brilliant white person working for you. In my case, it was in a critical patient care area of a big hospital. You monkeys who'd rather have your SJW brownie points than have your health care providers being qualified get what you deserve! Wish I could be there to see it!

How about considering that brilliant POC exist and are passed over for unqualified whites? You right wing vermin never consider this reality and this is a reality that has happened since America began. Unqualified whites almost killed my brother in these past months. Fortunately a doctor of color took over his case and he's going to survive. He was in critical care just like you. And how many white doctors have been sued for malpractice?

 

[Orangecat]

You're here more than me. Whites like you want to pretend you don't know what the solution is and then want to press blacks to provide the solution to a problem those like you created and continue to perpetuate. You are the problem and until you can start working to end racism in the white community, instead of making excuses while trying to blame blacks or divert from the problems white racism causes to try making claims about other races, you will continue to be the problem. So how about whites such as yourself begin taking the responsibility you preach to others and start working to end racism in the white community?

Because that is the solution and you know it.

You telling "whites" what "work" they need to do will never solve the problems you perceive. End of story.

 

[IM2]

You're correct about IM2.

She isn't talking about me. Learn that pointing out a specific subculture in the white race, such as white right wing extremists, is not declaring a belief in an inherent trait in a whole race. White right wing extremists are not the entire white race, so this disingenuous whining coming from you right wing whites about my racism has no merit.

So stop whining.