Recently in Discrimination Category

The following is being issued by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC:

Lead women plaintiffs in the sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart (Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) today filed a briefing opposing Wal-Mart's request to the U.S. Supreme Court that it review a lower court's class action decision.

In April 2010, after nearly a decade of pre-trial wrangling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of class action status for the case.  The lawsuit alleges systemic discrimination against women in compensation and promotions at Wal-Mart and its subsidiary, Sam's Club. It is the largest civil rights class action in history.  Wal-Mart has lost the class action issue four times before the U.S. District and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"This latest appeal is just another attempt to delay the case," said Betty Dukes, a Pittsburg, Calif., Wal-Mart greeter for whom the case is named. "After nearly 10 years, the women of Wal-Mart deserve our day in court."

The brief filed in opposition to Wal-Mart's Petition argues that the Ninth Circuit ruling upholding the class was proper.  It states that Wal-Mart ignores the compelling facts that led the trial court--in a detailed 84-page opinion--to conclude that there was significant proof to raise an inference of company-wide pay and promotion discrimination.  The evidence also showed that Wal-Mart lagged far behind its competitors in its promotion of women and long knew of the discrimination against its female employees but failed to act.

Wal-Mart's real argument, ultimately, is that "it is too big to be held accountable," according to the women's brief.  "The class is large because Wal-Mart is the nation's largest employer and manages its operations and employment practices in a highly uniform and centralized manner."  

The brief also states that the class certification decision in this case does not threaten employers with good records on diversity or open the floodgates to class actions.

"In fact, in the nearly four years since the Ninth Circuit first affirmed Dukes in February 2007, not a single Title VII class action - small or large - has been certified within the Ninth Circuit.  In the same four-year time period, nine Title VII class actions have been certified in the federal courts across the entire country - about two cases a year.  Only four of these cases involved private corporate employers.

"The very small number of Title VII class action cases certified in the recent past underscores another important point...  It highlights how different Wal-Mart is from the typical employer. Wal-Mart is a uniquely large and unusually uniform and centralized company."  Wal-Mart has lagged far behind its competitors in its promotion of women. The evidence against Wal-Mart fully supports a class action.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to take the case by the end of the year.

For more information and a copy of the Opposition brief, visit www.walmartclass.com.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart plaintiffs are represented by The Impact Fund, Berkeley, Calif; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Washington, DC; Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), San Francisco; Davis Cowell & Bowe, San Francisco; Public Justice Center, Baltimore; and Tinkler Law Firm and Merit Bennett, Santa Fe, N.M.   SOURCE Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Prominent trial attorney Willie Gary of Florida and Charles H. Peckham of Houston, Texas announced today they are filing a $100 million discrimination lawsuit against three of Chicago's well-known real estate companies; The Lowe Group Chicago, Inc., Midwest Realty Ventures and Prudential Rubloff Properties.

The lawsuit is being filed on behalf of famed radio personality, George Willborn and his family for punitive and compensatory damages. Gary and his law partner Michael Lewis, Texas-based attorney, Charles H. Peckham and attorney Jason Williams of the Florida-based law firm of Gary, Williams, Finney, Lewis, Watson and Sperando, P.L. join in the cause.  The team alleges real estate agent Jeffrey Lowe, his company, and his clients, Daniel and Adrienne Sabbia, refused to sell or otherwise made unavailable to the Willborns a home, based on their African American race.  

"If this can happen to the Willborns, a prominent couple with the means to buy a home in an exclusive neighborhood, it can happen to anyone," said Charles H. Peckham at a press conference today on the steps of the Chicago Federal courthouse where they filed the lawsuit.  "This kind of arbitrary discrimination has to stop now.  It cannot be overstated the kind of courage it took for the Willborns to standup against this kind of racism and hold the people responsible accountable."

The Sabbias, a white married couple, owned the property and had been trying to sell the residence for two years when the Willborns became interested in the home and made an offer.  The Willborns were identified as qualified buyers, negotiations ensued and the Willborns accepted the Sabbias' counteroffer.  A sales contract was prepared but after many days, the Sabbias failed to respond or sign the contract.  The Sabbias subsequently took the property off the market stating that Mrs. Sabbia suddenly had a change of heart and no longer wanted to leave the residence.

The U.S. Department of Justice intends to assist the Willborns in the lawsuit. A verified complaint was filed with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and it was determined by the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) that reasonable cause existed to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred in this case based on race.  FHEO authorized HUD to proceed with the issuance of a charge of discrimination.  George Willborn and his family have been subjected to the emotional and physical harm of discrimination and have suffered damages including economic loss, emotional distress, inconvenience and a lost housing opportunity.

"It is unfathomable that something like this could happen in today's society," commented attorney Willie Gary.  "Since the days of Dr. King, our nation has come so far in the area of race relations.  It just goes to show that there is much work to be done."

No stranger to high profile cases, Charles H. Peckham is currently working as the civil attorney for Dr. Conrad Murray, the doctor accused of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson.  Peckham of the Houston-based law firm of Peckham PLLC is Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  Peckham is known for his experience handling cases involving racism and is licensed to practice in Texas by the Supreme Court of Texas and is also admitted to practice before the United States District Courts in the Southern, Northern, Western and Eastern Districts of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Charles H. Peckham concentrates in many areas of litigation including employment, real estate, commercial and aviation law.

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.

A Sikh filed a discrimination lawsuit today after being told to remove his religiously-mandated beard if he wanted a job. The Sikh, Gurpreet Singh Kherha, filed his lawsuit in New Jersey state court against Tri-County Lexus where he wanted to work as a sales representative.

In 2008, Mr. Kherha was recruited for a sales position at Tri-County Lexus in Little Falls, New Jersey.  After completing two days of training at Lexus, Mr. Kherha participated in a final group interview with a Tri-County Lexus manager.  

After the interview ended, a recruiter approached Mr. Kherha to ask if his beard is a religious requirement.  Mr. Kherha explained that he is a practicing Sikh who does not cut his hair, including his facial hair.  The recruiter then asked Mr. Kherha if he would be willing to remove his beard in order to obtain a job as a Tri-County Lexus sales representative.  Mr. Kherha replied he would not.

The recruiter then left Mr. Kherha to speak to his colleagues. Upon his return he informed Mr. Kherha that he had not been selected for a sales position at Tri-County Lexus.

The recruiter told Gurpreet that Tri-County Lexus' General Manager stated he was "exactly what they were looking for," "well-qualified" and "well-educated" but that the company has a corporate policy prohibiting salespersons from maintaining facial hair.  The recruiter also stated that Tri-County's general manager had contacted the corporate headquarters to request an accommodation for Mr. Kherha's religious practices, but had been rejected.

"I am taking a stand against not only Tri-County Lexus, but all employers who discriminate against qualified applicants," said Mr. Kherha. "I don't want any other Sikh to be told they are well educated and well qualified, but not hired because of their faith."

The Sikh Coalition has represented Mr. Kherha since April 2008. The Coalition engaged attorney Ravinder Singh Bhalla, an experienced New Jersey litigator, to work with jointly on the case. Since then, the legal team has:

• Been in direct contact with attorneys for Tri-County Lexus, which denies any wrong-doing. 
• Filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  The legal team has met with the EEOC and is cooperating with the agency's ongoing investigation of the case.
• Filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court to vindicate Mr. Kherha's rights.

"Tri-County Lexus forced a Sikh to choose between his religion and employment," said Ravinder S. Bhalla. "Now they will have to answer for their discrimination in court."

Background:

Sikhism is the fifth largest world religion, with approximately 21 million adherents worldwide. Under the principals of their faith, Sikhs are mandated to leave their hair uncut, wrapping the hair on their heads underneath a turban.

Since 9/11, misperceptions about this appearance have led to hate attacks and discrimination against Sikhs across the country, by both public and private actors. The Sikh Coalition has worked to end this discrimination.

SOURCE Sikh Coalition

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

The NAACP and nine class representatives today filed a motion for class certification in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on behalf of a nationwide group of current and former employees of Eli Lilly Company. At the same time, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the pharmaceutical giant discriminates against its African-American employees in pay, promotion and related promotional opportunities and that Lilly's discriminatory policies and practices deny these African Americans an equal opportunity to advance in their careers.

Accompanying the class certification motion and amended complaint were certified declarations by more than 100 members of the class throughout the United States regarding their adverse employment experiences at the company.

The legal actions were announced at 11 a.m. Tuesday on the steps of the U.S. District Courthouse in Indianapolis by Angela Ciccolo, National General Counsel of the NAACP; plaintiffs' spokesperson Cassandra Welch; and the plaintiffs' attorney and new Co-lead Counsel David Sanford, of Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP.

Sanford Wittels & Heisler, a national civil rights firm with offices in Washington, D.C., New York City and San Francisco, and the Morelli Ratner firm, a New York City-based plaintiff's firm have joined with Rose & Rose, a civil rights firm in Washington, DC, as Co-lead Counsel in the matter. The plaintiff's local counsel in Indiana is Rob Dassow of Hovde, Dassow & Deets, LLC.

The NAACP, Cassandra Welch in her individual capacity, as well as Raynard Tyson, Sheryl A. Davis, Clara Walker, Delores Ryan, Allison Carter, Lawanda Rutledge, Joy Mason, Kelly French and Jackie Colbert are named as class representatives on behalf of themselves and the class of current and past employees of Eli Lilly who experienced pervasive and longstanding racial discrimination as Lilly employees. There are an estimated 2,000 members of the class.

"More than 100 African American employees have filed declarations outlining the toll of Eli Lilly's discrimination on them and their families. Lost earnings and benefits coupled with the humiliation and distress of years of not being recognized for their merit and being held back because of the color of their skin," said Mr. Benjamin Jealous, President of the NAACP. "Companies like Eli Lilly who practice the anachronistic policies of racial discrimination harm not only the victims, but the competitiveness of U.S. business which must conduct business in an increasingly diverse marketplace."

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, front pay, and attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to redress Lilly's pervasive and discriminatory employment practices.

All of the plaintiffs worked at Lilly locations in the U.S. over the past three decades and many continue to work there today: Mr. Tyson resided in North Carolina and was employed by Lilly from 1999 through 2004; Ms. Davis has been employed as a sales representative by Lilly in Memphis, TN, since March 2000; Ms. Walker resides in Indianapolis and has been employed at Lilly since 1988; Ms. Ryan resides in Indianapolis and has been employed at Lilly since 1977; Ms. Carter resides in Indianapolis and has been employed at Lilly since 2000; Ms. Rutledge resides in Olympia Fields, IL, and has been employed at Lilly since 2003; Ms. Mason resides in Indianapolis and has been employed at Lilly since 1998 and Kelly French resides in Indianapolis and was employed at Lilly from 1999 through 2008.

"Lilly discriminates against its African-American employees by advancing the company's white employees more quickly, and by denying African-American employees equal job assignments, promotional opportunities, training, compensation and other benefits of employment," said Mr. Sanford, Co-Lead Class Counsel. "These actions are part of Lilly's continuing pattern and practice of treating African-American employees differently from white employees. Such callous and unlawful behavior gives a new and warped meaning to the term 'lily white.' It cannot be allowed to continue."

Ms. Welch resided in Indianapolis during her employment by Lilly from 1992 until 2004. She is a long-time member of the NAACP, which is committed to the improvement of the social and economic status of minority groups, the elimination of racial prejudice and discrimination, and the attainment of civil rights and equal opportunities for its members and others. The majority of the members of the NAACP are African American.

"I have been subjected to blatant and persistent pay discrimination throughout my tenure at Lilly," said Ms. Welch. "I had to endure years of racist comments and threats -- including having a dark-colored doll with a noose around its neck left on my desk -- just to remain employed. My complaints to supervisors were never properly investigated, and I was ultimately let go by the company based on an untrue allegation by a co-worker."

Similar employment horror stories of the nine class representatives are described in the filing and in the more than 100 declarations.

"As these individual and collective employment experiences make clear, for several decades Lilly has intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices with indifference to the federally protected rights of its African American employees," said Ms. Ciccolo, General Counsel of the NAACP. "This company's longstanding policies and patterns of discrimination have injured and damaged these nine class representatives and all of the other African-Americans it employs. The legal actions we are taking in Indianapolis federal court are required to bring that injury and damage to a prompt and permanent end."

SOURCE Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP

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