Recently in Civil Rights Category

Earlier this morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a divided ruling upholding Illinois' mandatory moment of silence law.  The law requires all Illinois public schools to begin the school day with a moment of silence "for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day."   In January 2009, a U.S. District Court found the law to be unconstitutional.  Today's ruling reverses that decision.   The following statement can be attributed to ACLU of Illinois Senior Staff Counsel Adam Schwartz:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois is disappointed that this divided appellate court panel today gave its endorsement to a statewide law that coerces children to pray in our public schools.  In the words of Appellate Judge Williams' dissent from this decision:

"The Act makes what I believe to be an unnecessary reference to prayer, signaling a predominantly religious purpose to the statute.  And by enumerating prayer as one of the only two specific permissible activities, the Act conveys a message that Illinois students should engage in prayer during the prescribed period as opposed to a host of other silent options."

Judge Williams also concluded the government's supposed secular purpose - calming children - was a "pretext," among other reasons because legislative sponsors equated the moment of silence in school with the prayers recited each day before the General Assembly convenes.

The appellate court's majority also ignored District Judge Gettleman's determination below that under the law, a "teacher is compelled to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades, about prayer and its meaning..."   This is not the appropriate role of public schools.  Beyond encouraging prayer, the law also prefers those religions that practice silent prayer over those that do not.

As the courts long have recognized, it is not the role of government (including public schools) to tell children when and how to pray.   Religious exercise is a matter for students and parents, not politicians and school officials.

Even without this law, students in Illinois remain free to pray on their own, in a non-disruptive manner, throughout the school day.  Public school students in Illinois do not require the permission of the General Assembly to engage in this constitutionally protected activity.  

SOURCE ACLU of Illinois

The Justice Department today announced the filing and settlement of a lawsuit against the Pasco County Fair Association Inc. for allegedly discriminating against Hispanic patrons in the rental of a reception hall on its fairgrounds in Dade City, Fla. The department's complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa and the settlement is memorialized in a consent decree that must still be approved by the court.

The complaint alleges that the Pasco County Fair Association violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against persons of Hispanic descent by charging and quoting Hispanic customers and prospective customers higher deposit fees for renting the Dan Cannon Auditorium, a reception hall owned and operated by the fair association and used for weddings, anniversaries and other events.

"Public gathering places such as reception halls should be open to all persons regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, and our nation's laws make clear that discrimination of this sort is unacceptable," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "This settlement sends the important message that the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division are committed to eradicating illegal discrimination in public accommodations."

"People use public places like this to celebrate the most joyous and important events of their lives," said U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida A. Brian Albritton. "The U.S. Attorney's Office will remain vigilant to ensure access to such places without illegal discrimination."

The consent decree prohibits the fair association from discriminating on the basis of national origin in the provision of goods, services and facilities at the fairgrounds and the Dan Cannon hall. The decree also requires training of the association's board members and employees, the adoption of nondiscrimination policies and procedures, the posting of nondiscrimination policies in Spanish and English, the adoption of complaint resolution procedures, the retention of an outside contractor to test the association's compliance with Title II, and monitoring by the government.

The lawsuit arose after the Greater Tampa Chapter of the ACLU Foundation of Florida alerted the Civil Rights Division that the fair association was allegedly charging Hispanics higher deposits to rent Dan Cannon Auditorium. The government conducted an independent investigation, including using testers - individuals who pose as renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices - who uncovered evidence of possible discrimination.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin in places of public accommodation, such as restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, nightclubs, stadiums and other places of exhibition or entertainment. Under Title II, the Civil Rights Division can obtain injunctive relief that changes policies and practices to remedy customer discrimination. Title II does not include a provision for monetary damages for individuals who are victims of discrimination.

The continued enforcement of Title II is a priority of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division is available on its website at www.justice.gov/crt.

The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and five local residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a new Seattle parks regulation that bans firearms, arguing that the ban violates Washington State's long-standing preemption statute. They are joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors.

The lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court and names the City of Seattle, Mayor Greg Nickels and Timothy Gallagher, superintendent of Parks and Recreation, as defendants. Plaintiffs are represented by Seattle attorney Steve Fogg with the Seattle law firm of Corr, Cronin, Michelson, Baumgardner & Preece LLC.

"This ban violates Washington's 26-year-old model preemption statute," noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "The ban makes it impossible, under threat of criminal trespass penalty, to lawfully carry firearms for the protection of spouses, partners and children on public property where these citizens have a right to be. We are once again delighted to be joined by the NRA in this action. Our successful collaborations in the past stopped illegal gun confiscations in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, and nullified an illegal gun ban in the City of San Francisco."

Individual plaintiffs in the case are:

Winnie Chan, a Department of Corrections employee who lives in Seattle and works in West Seattle. When she is not on-duty, she often carries her personal concealed handgun, particularly when she is going to be in unfamiliar locations, out late at night, or in large/crowded places. (DOC policy prohibits her from carrying her state-issued firearm when she is off-duty, and therefore she owns a personal firearm.) She is concerned that people she has encountered on the job may be disgruntled and pose a threat to her safety. She sometimes visits Lincoln Park for recreation, and she has seen a sign prohibiting firearms there.

Ray Carter, also a West Seattle resident, employed as a car salesman at MC Electric Vehicles in Seattle. He is active in the gay community; he co-chaired the Pride Parade in the mid-1990s and founded the Seattle Chapter of Pink Pistols/Cease Fear. He has testified in Olympia and at City Hall regarding gun bans. The Seattle Weekly wrote an article about Ray in June 2000 entitled "Gays and Guns." He carries his concealed pistol any place where it is legal, and he believes this is necessary because he is susceptible to hate-related crimes. Ray sometimes visits Lincoln Park and Alki Beach, and he states that he has seen signs prohibiting firearms at those locations.

Gary Goedecke, owner and proprietor of Pikeplace Marketwear, a 35-year-old business at Pike Place Market. A Bothell resident, he has been actively involved with the Pike Place Market for years. Gary is an avid gun owner and carries a concealed pistol wherever he can. Gary notes that Steinbrook Park is directly adjacent to the Market and is a very dangerous place; he fears for the safety of his wife (who also works at the Market) and his employees.

Gray Peterson of Lynnwood, who often visits Seattle parks facilities with his domestic partner. Active in the Seattle-area gay community, Peterson is licensed to carry a concealed firearm and does so where it is lawfully permitted because of concerns that he is susceptible to becoming a victim of hate-related crimes. Signs have been posted at some of his favorite parks that prohibit firearms possession.

Robert Kennar, a Department of Corrections employee and resident of Federal Way. He frequently works in Seattle and visits parks and recreation facilities. Kennar has been a crime victim and he often observes criminal activity in Seattle. He is licensed to carry a concealed handgun and always carries his personal firearm when not on duty where he is permitted to do so. He is concerned about retaliation from people he encounters in his line of work. Kennar enjoys visiting Seattle parks, but one of his favorite parks now displays a sign prohibiting firearms.

"This ban affects the rights of all Washington citizens who may visit Seattle parks property and recreation facilities, and especially thousands of Seattle gun owners, many of whom are members of both organizations," Gottlieb stated. "It essentially impairs the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms for personal protection, which is explicitly protected by Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution."

Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna has issued an opinion that the ban is illegal. Under provisions of the ban, legally-armed citizens face arrest for criminal trespass if they enter park property.

"The parks ban is a going-away gift of sour grapes from ousted Mayor Greg Nickels to the citizens of Seattle," Gottlieb observed. "He is leaving a mess for his successor, and the taxpayers who rejected his third term bid, to clean up."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation

The Justice Department today announced that a federal grand jury in Miami returned a three-count indictment on Sept. 11, 2009, charging former Dade Correctional Institution (DCI) officers Cordell J. White and Christopher W. Bonnet, current DCI Sergeant Obe D. L'Bert, and former DCI inmate Larry T. Williams with violating, and conspiring to violate, the civil rights of other inmates at DCI.

The indictment alleges that on Oct. 26, 2008, defendants L'Bert and White arranged for defendant-inmate Williams, a/k/a Monster, to assault another inmate, identified in the indictment as D.T. L'Bert and White allegedly moved D.T. to Williams' cell and waited outside of the cell while Williams assaulted and injured D.T. The indictment further alleges that on Nov. 1, 2007, defendants White and Bonnet arranged for Williams to assault another inmate, identified in the indictment as F.H., then escorted Williams to F.H.'s cell and waited outside of the cell while Williams assaulted and injured F.H.

An indictment is merely an accusation, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. If convicted, each defendant faces a maximum penalty of ten years in prison on each of the three felony civil rights charges.

This case was investigated by the FBI and the Florida State Department of Corrections, Inspector General's Office; and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Osborne of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and Trial Attorney Edward Chung of the Civil Rights Division.

Souce: U.S. Dept. of Justice

Legal Services NYC today filed a lawsuit in State Supreme Court on behalf of low-income New Yorkers who have been denied access to vital benefits, such as Food Stamps and Medicaid, solely because they cannot communicate in English, despite a city law requiring the Human Resources Administration (HRA) to provide translation and interpretation services to these individuals. The lawsuit alleges widespread civil rights violations at HRA centers across the five boroughs.

Five years ago, the New York City Council passed The Equal Access to Human Services Act of 2003 (Local Law 73), which mandates the provision of translation and interpretation services at HRA centers. Legal Services NYC has actively monitored HRA's compliance with this law over the past five years, documenting the way in which limited English proficient (LEP) clients are routinely denied services at their HRA centers while applying for benefits or while simply attempting to maintain them.

In 2007, Legal Services NYC, after continuing to see non-English speaking clients routinely denied access to HRA services, surveyed all 69 centers to monitor compliance with the law. Survey results demonstrated that legally mandated translated applications were not available at 66% of HRA centers and that fewer than two-thirds of the centers had interpreter services available in the most commonly spoken languages of the community, as legally required, for LEP individuals. Since the survey results were released in 2007, Legal Services NYC has continued to monitor and report access problems to HRA. HRA has failed to adequately resolve these reported problems. The lawsuit filed today seeks to compel HRA to immediately comply with the law and to end its discriminatory treatment of non-English speaking New Yorkers.

Mercedes Cruz is an LEP mother of three who is one of six plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Ms. Cruz's native language is Spanish, the second most commonly spoken language in the city and a language spoken by over 2 million New York City residents, and she and her family subsist entirely on Public Assistance Benefits. However, since 2007, when she opened her Public Assistance case, HRA's Income Maintenance Center #63 - Coney Island has failed to provide her with a Spanish interpreter at any of her appointments despite her repeated requests. The majority of the documents Ms. Cruz receives from Center #63, including notices that her benefits are being discontinued and notifications of upcoming appointments, are entirely in English. In March 2009, Ms. Cruz went to Center #63 with a letter from her attorney explaining that she was limited English proficient and that the Center was legally required to provide a Spanish interpreter. The Center refused to provide her with an interpreter. Despite Ms. Cruz's attorney's request that the Center's Language Liaison pair Ms. Cruz with a Spanish-speaking caseworker, she is currently assigned to a caseworker who speaks only English. Because she does not understand all of the documents she receives from the Center and all communications she has with Center staff, Ms. Cruz's Public Assistance case has repeatedly been sanctioned and erroneously discontinued.

"Five years ago Mayor Bloomberg proudly signed a landmark civil rights law ensuring equal access to all HRA services. Today, despite a significant investment of taxpayer dollars, HRA is still routinely denying vital services to the most vulnerable New Yorkers in flagrant violation of law. Enough is enough. We call on HRA to immediately remedy its widespread discriminatory treatment of limited English proficient New Yorkers," said Amy Taylor, Language Access Project Coordinator at Legal Services NYC.

"Local Law 73 is the result of modern-day civil rights legislation, and New York's language access laws are a model to localities across the nation. The City's failure to provide the most basic services to all New Yorkers is not only discriminatory and illegal but a stain on our reputation as an international destination and capital of the world. We must treat all New Yorkers with the dignity and respect they deserve," said New York City Council Member John C. Liu, primary sponsor of The Equal Access to Human Services Act of 2003.

"New York City is the most multicultural and multilingual city in the country and must serve as an example of equal access. With HRA programs like food stamps and Medicaid, New Yorkers depend on language assistance in government for the basic necessities of life. HRA must act now to provide essential translations and interpreters in compliance with the law to meet the needs of all New Yorkers," said Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer.

"In order to best serve the richly diverse population of New York City, it is vital that appropriate translation services are offered to all people when accessing public benefits. This lawsuit serves as an important reminder to the challenges many New Yorkers face when trying to access assistance," said New York City Council Member Annabel Palma.

"Every week we see families and individuals facing emergencies such as evictions due to unpaid rent, utility shut- offs or hunger because they either did not understand a request that was written only in English or because they cannot communicate with City workers due to their limited English proficiency. These families cannot get help because the City's failure to provide them with translation and interpretation services prevents them from applying for or fully understanding the benefits available to them. Increasing barriers to service because of a lack of translation leaves an already vulnerable population even more burdened," said Jennifer Vallone, the Director of Project Home at University Settlement, which referred LEP clients to Legal Services NYC as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Source: Legal Services NYC

William Cozzi, a Chicago police officer, was sentenced today to 40 months in federal prison for violating the federal civil rights of a man whom the officer struck repeatedly with a dangerous weapon while the man was handcuffed and shackled in a wheelchair, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King for the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the Northern District of Illinois and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the FBI.

Cozzi, 52, of Chicago, pleaded guilty in January and admitted that he used excessive or unreasonable force while acting under color of law. He was ordered to begin serving his sentence on Aug. 6, 2009. The sentence was imposed by U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning, who also imposed a $2,000 fine, two years of supervised release and 200 hours of community service. Cozzi joined the Chicago Police Department in 1992 and was assigned to the 25th District at the time of the alleged incident. He was subsequently suspended from duty.

Cozzi was charged in April 2008 with depriving the victim of his civil rights. In pleading guilty, Cozzi admitted that on Aug. 2, 2005, while performing his duties as a police officer, he used a "sap" -- a dangerous weapon similar to a blackjack -- to repeatedly strike the unnamed victim, identified only as "Victim A," who was handcuffed and shackled in a wheelchair at Norwegian American Hospital in Chicago, resulting in bodily injury. At the time, Victim A was awaiting treatment in the hospital emergency room after being stabbed in the shoulder.

"Police officers are given tremendous authority and responsibility so that they can protect and serve the public trust. Those who abuse that authority face serious consequences," said Loretta King, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The Civil Rights Division is committed to the vigorous enforcement of federal laws prohibiting this type of misconduct by law enforcement officials."

"No law enforcement officer may use unreasonable force with impunity and every citizen, regardless of being in police custody, has a Constitutional right to be free from the use of excessive force," U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said.

Cozzi pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal a judge's rulings last year denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the prosecution was based in part on compelled statements he made to the Chicago Police Department's Office of Professional Standards and during a police review board hearing.

According to a plea agreement, Cozzi was dispatched to the hospital to respond to the stabbing and approached Victim A who was being loud and verbally abusive while awaiting treatment for the stabbing. Shortly after approaching Victim A, Cozzi placed him in handcuffs and left the emergency room to retrieve leg shackles, which he then placed upon Victim A. With the victim restrained, Cozzi used a sap to repeatedly strike him in the face and body. At the time, Victim A posed no physical threat to Cozzi or anyone else at the hospital, according to the plea agreement.

Cozzi also admitted that he subsequently prepared a false arrest report and misdemeanor complaints stating that Victim A attempted to punch him and two hospital security guards, as well as a false tactical response report stating that he used an "open hand strike" on Victim A but omitted that he struck the victim with a sap.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

Documents from all five cases of Brown v. Board of Education Presented for the First Time

The struggle for freedom is a recurring theme in the annals of American history, and it is the subject of a new exhibition of milestone documents opening June 16 at the National Archives at Atlanta.

To mark the 75th anniversary of the National Archives and Records Administration, the National Archives at Atlanta opens Documented Rights, a traveling exhibition of original documents from each of the 13 regional branches of the National Archives.

Documented Rights presents records that give voice to the national struggle for human and civil rights. It features more than 80 documents, facsimiles, images and sound recordings, including:

• Selected documents from all five court cases that comprised Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that ended school segregation -- exhibited for the first time together;
• Court records of the schooner Amistad, that tell the story of 53 Africans who resisted enslavement, overpowered the ship's captain and were found off the coast of Long Island;
• Court records from San Francisco in the 1890s chronicling the citizenship odyssey of San Francisco-born Wong Kim Ark;
• The official logbook recording the WWII evacuation and relocation of Aleuts in Alaska;
• Court records reflecting the efforts of white residents of Koinonia Farms, Georgia, to overcome various forms of discrimination;
• An early Montgomery Improvement Association booklet by Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
• A court martial order for Second Lt. Jackie Robinson who refused to move to the back of the bus on a military post.

Documented Rights is part of a nationwide series of commemorative events that includes a one-day symposium at the National Archives at Atlanta on June 13 on the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement; registration for the symposium is closed.

The exhibition is free and open to the public at the National Archives at Atlanta, 5780 Jonesboro Road, Morrow, Georgia. The facility hours are Tuesday - Saturday, 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Call 770-968-2100 for more information or see http://www.archives.gov/southeast/.

Source: National Archives

White Plains, New York Law firm Tilem & Campbell announces the filing of a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit naming the Village of Spring Valley, its Police Department, the Building Department, two building inspectors and several police officers. One of the police officers, Roxanne Lopez, named as a defendant in the suit, is featured prominently on Manhunters, a television program which airs on the A&E network and follows the exploits of a task force of local police officers and federal marshals that apprehends wanted fugitives.

The law suit alleges that on or about July 1, 2008, Police Officer Roxanne Lopez and other police officers tricked an individual named Moshe Katz into going to 20 Franklin Avenue in Spring Valley, New York, the location of an apartment Mr. Katz was attempting to rent out. Once there, Detective Lopez and another Officer named in the Federal Complaint only as Detective "Ted" demanded that Mr. Katz give an individual named "Hector" $1000, which they claimed Mr. Katz owed "Hector". "Hector" is believed to be a friend or acquaintance of Detective Lopez. According to Court papers, when Mr. Katz refused to pay money to "Hector", Detective Lopez contacted co-defendant, Assistant Building Inspector Manny Carmona, who immediately arrived at the scene. Both Detective Lopez and Assistant Building Inspector Carmona then threatened an illegal building inspection unless Mr. Katz paid $1000 to "Hector."

According to the Federal Complaint, Mr. Katz paid "Hector" $600 and was then forced by Detective Lopez to go the bank to get the additional $400, under further threat of an illegal building inspection. Detective Lopez and Detective Ted instructed Assistant Building Inspector Carmona to remain at the location until Mr. Katz returned with the additional $400. The Lawsuit alleges that the police, under color of law, acted as judges and jury in collecting a debt for a friend.

If anyone has any information on this case or other misconduct by any of the individuals involved in this case they should contact the law firm at info@tilemandcampbell.com" target=_new>info@tilemandcampbell.com.

SOURCE Tilem & Campbell

A pending application to the New York Supreme Court seeks to force Google to divulge the identity of an anonymous blogger because of a few comments made on the Internet on one single day. The application brings to the fore the need to ensure that First Amendment free-speech protections continue to extend to anonymous web-based commentary.

A hearing on the motion to reveal the anonymous blogger's identity is scheduled for Wednesday, February 25th. The petitioner, fashion model Liskula Cohen, alleges that references to her as a "skank" and "ho" on the website "Skanks in NYC" constitutes actionable libel under New York law and on that ground seeks to unmask the anonymous blogger.

 

"Despite its seemingly petty underpinnings, this case carries serious implications," says Debra J. Guzov, co-founder of Guzov Ofsink, LLC, which is defending the anonymous blogger. "We strongly believe that if the plaintiff were to succeed in her efforts, it would move toward the erosion of our basic constitutional right to anonymous free speech."

Anonymity and the Internet

The Cohen proceeding could potentially have a chilling effect on anonymous commentary made all over the Internet. "Ideas are exchanged freely on the Internet in large part because participants can speak using assumed names or no name at all," says Ms. Guzov. She adds that anonymity not only encourages democratic discourse and allows dissenters from majority opinion to share their minority views, but it also provides vital protection from the fear of political, economic or even physical retribution for espousing those views.

"The Internet has become the predominant forum in modern society for the free exchange of ideas and opinions, however absurd, profane, insulting or rhetorical," says Anne W. Salisbury, a Guzov Ofsink attorney who specializes in First Amendment cases. "We do not have to condone everything people say on the Internet, but we must respect their right to say it."

Courts all over the country have already ruled that words such as "skank," "pimp," "tramp" and "douchebag" are not defamatory, especially in the context of blogs and other online commentary. "Context matters," Ms. Guzov notes. "Indeed, in this particular case, no reasonable person visiting a web site entitled 'Skanks in NYC' would expect to find assertions of verifiable facts."

SOURCE Guzov Ofsink, LLC

TROY, Mich., Feb. 11 / -- A former decorated U.S. Marine Sergeant filed a 10 million dollar claim against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on Friday, February 6, 2009 for being harassed and targeted because of his faith as a Muslim. Sgt. Affraz Mohammed was falsely accused, prosecuted, and later acquitted during court martial proceedings for allegedly attempting to purchase an unlicensed firearm.

During his wrongful prosecution, and because of his faith, Sgt. Mohammed was repeatedly harassed and tormented for being a Muslim and was repeatedly called a "Terrorist" and a "Taliban Marine." Sgt. Mohammed, who had an exemplary record with the Marines, was honorably discharged because he has been rendered disabled for suffering from extreme mental and emotional distress from the mental torture he had to endure.

Commenting on Sgt. Mohammed's ordeal, Mr. Shereef Akeel, his attorney said "This mistreatment of a decorated United States Marine who served his country with honors and distinction is shameful and simply unacceptable. This man should have been commended for protecting out borders with pride, not targeted because of his faith."

Akeel and Valentine, PLC has specialized in many civil rights and discrimination cases. For more information on this or other cases, please contact Akeel & Valentine, PLC, at (248) 269-9595 or visit their website at www.akeelvalentine.com