What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Zone1 Why do so many on this forum refuse to post SOLUTIONS and, instead, they infer that everyone not black is a racist? Kind enough mods?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Not really, solutions are easy, but implementing them is nigh on impossible.
That you believe that there are simple solutions to complex problems is probably part of the problem.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
To put it all on whites is racist.
Lisa who made Black people second class citizens in America by passing a slew of racially discriminatory laws that reinforced the hatred and animus against Black people? White racists did that.

This belief in their own superiority ran so deep that even 58 years later after those laws were rescinded white racists are STILL expressing hatred, discrimination and animus against black people such as the piece of shit that just pled guilty to 10 counts of murder and domestic violence yesterday in New York.

This is what racism at its extreme does:
Buffalo grocery store mass shooter pleads guilty to terrorism and murder charges in racist attack | CNN
 
  • Winner
Reactions: IM2

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,785
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
You guys blame us but you can't be blamed. Now if that's not the epitome of the entitlement mentality there is no such thing.

Historically ---- I blame white people A LOT. It's not 200 or 300 or even 100 years ago NOW. History can be discussed and learned from -- but the "solutions" that Markle was looking for have to address WHERE WE ARE TODAY. And I dont MIND reading your historical litany of white fault. I agree with MOST of it. But how it's RELEVANT to where we are today isn't as simple as you make it sound and its a hard slog to win on.
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Have we ever heard some of the black activists here ever state that blacks themselves contribute to the problem of racism? To put it all on whites is racist.
Who are the Black activists here Lisa?
 
OP
Markle

Markle

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
25,925
Reaction score
8,407
Points
910
Location
Tallahassee, FL
You all are pathetic. I didn't forget anything, I was a making a comment but since I'm Black and I ALWAYS have to show my work (which I do very well I might add), here's your friggin link:
Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases(Covering Private and Federal Sectors)
You might want to READ your source the next time.

One of the categories had THREE cases in 2020. I couldn't find another category with more than ONE. Yeah boy, they're just swamped with work.

If that's the quality of your real work, whew!
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,785
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
This belief in their own superiority ran so deep that even 58 years later after those laws were rescinded white racists are STILL expressing hatred, discrimination and animus against black people such as the piece of shit that just pled guilty to 10 counts of murder and domestic violence yesterday in New York.

Here's that "historically relevant" conundrum. Superior in what regards? In sports? In business? In the arts? We are WAY PAST the simpleton observation of superiority. Integration in sports, music, arts and EVERYTHING ELSE has made "superiority" an impossible case to prove.

Even IQ arguments today dont cut it because the differences are MORE at the LOW ENDS of all race performance in IQ and NOT in the middle or the top ends.

So that horse is out to pasture.

Jackie Robinson and Charlie Pride and George W. Carter and MLK done did that superiority horse in.
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Actually pretty clear that A LOT of the racial bias is ACTUALLY political bias.
No, this statement is unequivocally false, however investigators, attorneys, prosecutors, etc. will often try to allege and switch speech and acts which are rooted in racism to being "political" because speech/acts carried out due to a political motive can then be "legally" allowed (no findings of guilt or liability), whereas speech/acts motivated by a racist motive is a violation of the law for which the speaker or actor can be prosecuted or held liable for damages.

To state this as you have is nothing more than throwing up a smoke screen and believe me, I've seen it and experienced it enough to know I'm talking about. In fact I'm required to be able to recognize this when it's happens.
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
You might want to READ your source the next time.

One of the categories had THREE cases in 2020. I couldn't find another category with more than ONE. Yeah boy, they're just swamped with work.

If that's the quality of your real work, whew!
Well It's no reflection on my work if my client is illiterate (if this were an actual case of mine).

So you see all of those highlighted categories, those are the different race based ways employers discriminate against their workers. And actually you sending this back to me was very helpful to a current case because I have not read these in a while and you provided me with some usable case law, so I guess I should thank you, but I won't because you were not trying to help me :)

And I included a couple of cases for your reference, funny there are a lot more than 3 on that page, so many so that this text window will not hold them all.

1669791403841.png

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).
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Who's "stealing from you? Bill Gates? Jeff Bezos? The owner of the supermarket down the street who is white, brown or Asian? Here it is again I think. A whiff of Capitalism vs "every other way". ALSO more fundamental to racial bias than skin color. MAYBE more fundamental than POLITICAL differences.
What difference does it make who they are? The only thing that matters is if these people are so friggin superior then why do they have to steal from someone who they clearly dislike and don't think much of? That's the only important thing.

Oh and making them pay.
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
That's the truth. Dont we all? :wink: But trying like you do to make CONTACT with "the racist nuts" impresses me a WHOLE LOT. :hyper:
Oh I see why you're confused. The white racists on this site are not the target audience, they're just whatever that crap is at the bottom of a, well you know.
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Here's that "historically relevant" conundrum. Superior in what regards? In sports? In business? In the arts? We are WAY PAST the simpleton observation of superiority. Integration in sports, music, arts and EVERYTHING ELSE has made "superiority" an impossible case to prove.

Even IQ arguments today dont cut it because the differences are MORE at the LOW ENDS of all race performance in IQ and NOT in the middle or the top ends.

So that horse is out to pasture.

Jackie Robinson and Charlie Pride and George W. Carter and MLK done did that superiority horse in.
Why don't you write and ask Payton Gendron. Drop Dylann Roof a line as well. Ask them how their superiority manifests in this world. Other than by killing Black people.
 
OP
Markle

Markle

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
25,925
Reaction score
8,407
Points
910
Location
Tallahassee, FL
Lisa who made Black people second class citizens in America by passing a slew of racially discriminatory laws that reinforced the hatred and animus against Black people? White racists did that.
That would be the Democrats who passed those laws which have been gone now for generations. But you already knew that.

Republican%20Civil%20Rights%20Accomplishments-L.jpg


Racism-S.jpg
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
That would be the Democrats who passed those laws which have been gone now for generations. But you already knew that.

Republican%20Civil%20Rights%20Accomplishments-L.jpg


Racism-S.jpg
How did we go from the topic of race which a person CAN'T change, to the topic of political party which one CAN change?

Or is this just your deflection?
 
OP
Markle

Markle

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
25,925
Reaction score
8,407
Points
910
Location
Tallahassee, FL
Well It's no reflection on my work if my client is illiterate (if this were an actual case of mine).

So you see all of those highlighted categories, those are the different race based ways employers discriminate against their workers. And actually you sending this back to me was very helpful to a current case because I have not read these in a while and you provided me with some usable case law, so I guess I should thank you, but I won't because you were not trying to help me :)

And I included a couple of cases for your reference, funny there are a lot more than 3 on that page, so many so that this text window will not hold them all.

View attachment 732671

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).
You must be pretty embarrassed. Yep, that one category wasn't THREE cases, it was FOUR, in all of 2020. The others, ONE, if any.

Those cases are questionable, after all, they are desperate to keep their jobs.

As for DEFLECTION, where are your suggested possible suggestions and possible solutions to remedy the two instances I posted? Why are you and your kindred spirits so afraid to engage in proposals to make life better in predominantly black urban areas?
 
Last edited:

Leo123

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
23,294
Reaction score
16,311
Points
2,415
Solution: Drop the Democrat Party.
 

IM2

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
63,053
Reaction score
21,465
Points
2,290
Not any more dude. Just elect a bunch of woke leftist DAs and WATCH how the laws are ignored and NOT ENFORCED equally. When most of "prosecutors" LEAVE the office when the woke DA starts NOT CHARGING people according to the laws and policies and criminals are returned to the streets.

That "racism" in reverse. But the same STUPID kind of racism that brought on defund the police. Because 70% of black people who wake up every morning to the street carnage DONT WANT TO DEFUND the police or let serial criminals constantly walk BACK to harm THEM !!!!
Flacaltenn, you're haven't done any serious study of racism. Furthermor,e you're opinion is fueled by right wing ideology which in itself is racially biased against non whites. There is no racism in reverse, you diss things as woke, talking about defunding the police, none of which have anything to do with the thread topic.

There aren't all that many prosecutors not charging people , and about laws not being followed or enforced equally, as if its some modern thing, shows me just how much your being white limits your knowledge of the complexities of racism.

You have scoffed at behavioral evidence such as white fragility as some leftist scheme which itself is evidence of white fragility.

“Laissez-Faire Racism involves persistent negative stereotyping of African Americans, a tendency to blame blacks themselves for the black-white gap in socioeconomic standing, and resistance to meaningful policy efforts to ameliorate America’s racist social conditions and institutions.”

“I do not dispute that racism still exists. I dispute that it is the primary cause of all the dysfunction in the black community. When humans must endure drugs, gangs, violence, abortion, teenage childbirth, lack of fathers, poor schools, filthy run-down neighborhoods, lack of good jobs, lack of effective policing, etc, on a daily basis, succeeding life is nearly impossible.”
-white USMB poster, 2020

Modern racism is a belief that reflects an underlying prejudice towards black and non-white people in the United States. The difference in contemporary racism from Jim Crow racism is that the attacks focus on a group’s culture instead of claiming genetic superiority. Modern racism is primarily done online on social media. Modern racists will not express openly racist views. They believe racism is over and that racism is a thing of the past.
Two ways Modern racism happens like this:

• Rather than criticizing a minority group, those with racist beliefs will attack a policy or action, and use that as an outlet for their attitudes.
• Making a distinction between groups in terms of their ‘values


You have made comments that fit both these descriptions and there are a large number of white members here who do so daily.

Symbolic racism is a belief that: 1) Blacks no longer face much prejudice or discrimination, 2) Black failure to progress results from their unwillingness to work hard enough, 3) Blacks are demanding too much too fast, and 4) Blacks have gotten more than they deserve.

You read this in here every day, even among some moderators. Politics have very little nothing to do with it. It's easy to try minimizing racism when you really don't ever have to worry about it.

Lawrence Bobo, James R. Kluegel, and Ryan A, Smith, “Laissez-Faire Racism: The Crystallization of a ‘Kindler, Genter’ Anti-black Ideology” (Russell Sage Foundation: June 1996, Copyright 1996. EPN

N., Sam M.S., Modern Racism, What is MODERN RACISM? definition of MODERN RACISM (Psychology Dictionary)

Binna Kandola and Pearn Kandola, What is modern racism and how and why has racism mutated?, What is modern racism and how and why has racism mutated? | theHRD .

Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.259
 

IM2

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
63,053
Reaction score
21,465
Points
2,290
You must be pretty embarrassed. Yep, that one category wasn't THREE cases, it was FOUR, in all of 2020. The others, ONE, if any.

Those cases are questionable, after all, they are desperate to keep their jobs.

As for DEFLECTION, where are your suggested possible suggestions and possible solutions to remedy the two instances I posted? Why are you and your kindred spirits so afraid to engage in proposals to make life better in predominantly black urban areas?
We have presented the solution. You want to make this about your cherry picked examples based on stereotypes about blacks you believe. We are talking about racism in its totality, and not what you picked. Work on ending the white racism that makes you think you can post 3-4 examples then demand somebody give you a solution. Over 1 quarter of a million blacks die annually from hypertension caused by stress. Much of that stress is due to white racism. That same stress creates anger and frustration that ends up in violence. You refuse to acknowledge the solution for this- end white racism.
 

IM2

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
63,053
Reaction score
21,465
Points
2,290
Look bro - I'm really not here to embarass you but on the 1st 2 pages you were saying that only "white conservatives" on USMB were racist. I'm right. When you and Brandon start LABELING 1/2 the population of ANYTHING as racist or neo-nazi or Mighty MAGA MACHO --- THAT BECOMES A STRONGER DRIVER OF racism or bias than mere skin color.

You JUST SAID THAT a page or 2 ago. It's LARGELY POLITICAL. And it's the way you roll.

You can't embarrass me. How about I just call it a subculture in the white community that practices racism so you don't get stupid. Because it's not about politics but that is the out you want to give yourself. Sealybobo and I believe he calls himself Jim B are racists who are liberal. You really need to stop being white trying to tell me how color has nothing to do with anything. I have 61 years of life that says you are wrong. All you have is hot air and no life experience facing racism.
 

IM2

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
63,053
Reaction score
21,465
Points
2,290
What ISNT or hasn't become racist? Straight off the presses this week. Daylight Savings time is RACIST.

Don't post me trash from Biz Pac Review.

Like I said you are white, you don't face racism, nor do you study the effects of racism. So you go far out of your way to dismisss it. So to be blunt, you can't tell me anything about racism until you turn to a person of color and face it. Once you do that, you will understand the stunt you just pulled pisses people of color off.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

New Topics

Forum List

Top