In a July 23, 2009 U. S. Department of Justice (”DOJ”) Press Release, the DOJ announced that a jury in Boise, Idaho recently convicted two men on federal hate crime and conspiracy charges in connection with the racially-motivated assault of an African American man outside of a store in July 2008.  According to the DOJ Press Release, evidence revealed that on July 4, 2008, three men using racial slurs ambushed, chased and beat a 24 year-old African American man as he walked out of a store in Nampa, Idaho.  A U. S. attorney was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “These convictions mean that racial crimes will not be tolerated, not in this country, not on any day.”  Two of the defendants each face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  A third defendant pleaded guilty before trial and testified against the other two defendants.

The U.S. District Court in the Middle District of North Carolina has, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”), ordered an electrical contractor company to pay $175,674.00 to two female employees who were subjected to sexual harassment.  As stated in a July 24, 2009 EEOC Press Release, the sexual harassment lawsuit charged that female employees were subjected to sexual comments and touching by the company’s co-owner/president, including remarks about women’s bodies and clothing and comments about sex acts.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-24-09a.html .  The EEOC also asserted that the company knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to prevent or stop it.  The lawsuit further charges that as a result of the sexual harassment, several women were forced to quit their jobs. 

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) attorneys announced in a July 24, 2009 Press Release that a janitorial company has agreed to pay $46,000.00 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC in El Paso, Texas.  According to the EEOC Press Release, the janitorial company violated federal law when it allegedly fired a janitor because he is African American.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-24-09.html .  The EEOC stated that during the course of the lawsuit it obtained a sworn affidavit from a witness who heard a supervisor express discriminatory intentions toward the janitor.  In this regard, this witness allegedly observed the supervisor’s harsh discriminatory use of profanity and the “N-word” when he described all blacks as “lazy.”  According to the witness, the supervisor went on to say he would “get rid” of the janitor, assuming that because the janitor is African American, he must have been the one to tamper with a time clock.  An EEOC trial attorney quoted in the Press Release said that “If a supervisor fires an employee because of race, it is the company, rather than the supervisor, which must pay for that illegal conduct.” 

The EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  In Fiscal Year 2008, the EEOC received 33,937 charges alleging race discrimination, representing approximately 35 percent of all charges that year.  Additional information about the EEOC is available in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether workplace race discrimination occurs in El Paso or elsewhere, victims of employment related racial discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a race discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential race discrimination claim.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a July 22, 2009 Press Release that the agency filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against a Kentucky area frozen food distributor alleging that the company violated federal law by refusing to hire a qualified applicant for a job because of the applicant’s vision impairment.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-22-09a.html .  EEOC attorneys charged in the lawsuit that the visually impaired applicant had successfully performed the duties of a temp-to-hire bakery laborer for approximately two and a half months when he applied for a permanent position.  According to the EEOC Press Release, he received a job offer contingent upon passing a physical exam, but, based on the vision portion of the exam, he was deemed unqualified for the permanent bakery laborer position, even though he was already successfully performing the job on temporary basis.  In its lawsuit, the EEOC charges that he was never hired on a permanent basis because of his disability.  Such alleged conduct violates Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act (”ADA”) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.  The EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “It is unlawful for employers to deny qualified individuals with disabilities the opportunity to compete for jobs on a level playing field.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibitng employment discrimination and further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

In a July 22, 2009 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) Press Release, EEOC attorneys announced that a Maryland medical practice will pay $125,000.00 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC charged that the medical practice refused to return an employee to work who had recovered from breast cancer surgery.  According to the EEOC Press Release, the disability discrimination lawsuit alleged that the medical facility violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (”ADA”) when it discriminated against the employee by firing her when she had attempted to return to work after recovering from serious surgical complications.  As stated in the Press Release, she had been employed as a referral clerk for the practice for nearly 25 years and was diagnosed with breast cancer in January of 2007.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-22-09a.html .  About one week before her approved medical leave ended, she was called into work on May 31, 2007 and told her employer that she intended to work without interruption while undergoing her remaining chemotherapy sessions and radiation therapy for her cancer.  The practice administrator then allegedly cited examples of people she knew whose cancer treatments made them too sick to work.  At the meeting, the employee was presented with a termination letter that stated she was being fired because she was “currently unable to return to work on a full time basis … Due to the seriousness of her illness, and extended nature of the treatment required … we must exercise our option to permanently fill your position.”  In this regard, the ADA prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on assumptions and misinformation about a person’s medical condition, according to the Press Release. 

The EEOC stated that it has issued a compliance assistance document on cancer in the workplace, and the publication explains how the ADA might apply to job applicants and employees who have or had cancer.  The document is said to be available on the EEOC’s website and the website address provided was listed in the Press Release as http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/cancer.html . 

An EEOC Senior Trial Attorney was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “This case should remind employers of their legal responsibility to women working with breast cancer [that] employment decisions cannot be made based upon fears and stereotypes about a person’s medical condition.”

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace religious discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs as long as this does not pose an undue hardship.  In this regard, attorneys for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a July 20, 2009 EEOC Press Release that an elder care facility in White Hall, Arkansas will pay $24,000.00 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC in Arkansas.  According to the EEOC Press Release, EEOC attorneys charged that the elder care facility denied a religious accommodation to a certified nursing assistant and fired her because of her religious beliefs.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-20-09.html .  As stated in the Press Release, the certified nursing assistant, who had worked at the White Hall facility for over a year, is a Seventh Day Adventist, and her Sabbath is from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday evening.  Her religious beliefs prohibit her from working on her Sabbath.  After accommodating her for over a year, the facility suddenly refused to allow the employee to take off on her Sabbath and then terminated her employment, according to the Press Release.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “An employee should not be forced to choose between her religion and her job [and] this case demonstrates the EEOC’s commitment to combat religious discrimination in the workplace.”  

Over the past decade, religion-based charge filings with EEOC offices nationwide have almost doubled, from 1,786 in Fiscal Year 1998 to 3,273 in Fiscal Year 2008.  In this regard, further information about the EEOC and religion discrimination may be found at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether workplace religious discrimination occurs in Texas or elsewhere, victims of employment related religious discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a religious discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination claim.

In a July 21, 2009 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) Press Release, the federal agency announced that the owners of a Lexington, North Carolina furniture store will pay $80,000.00 and furnish significant injunctive relief to settle a race harassment lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys.  According to the EEOC Press Release, the race discrimination lawsuit alleged that three black production workers were subjected to a racially hostile work environment at various times between 2004 and August 2006.  In this regard, the EEOC claimed that the three were subjected to racial harassment in the form of racial slurs directed at them and that the racial slurs included references to African Americans as “monkeys,” statements that blacks should “go back and see [their] ancestors in the jungle,” and name-calling, including the use of the “N-word.”  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-21-09.html .  The EEOC alleged that the company was aware of the racial harassment and took no action to stop or prevent it.  In this regard, racial harassment violates Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated that racial harassment and other forms of race discrimination continue to exist in our nation’s workplaces and the EEOC will continue to take all steps necessary to eliminate this type of unlawful conduct.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .   

Whether unlawful employment related racial harassment occurs in Houston, Texas or elsewhere, victims of a racially hostile work environment may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a race discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential race harassment claim.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) attorneys announced in a July 16, 2009 Press Release that the EEOC filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against a Tampa-based environmental clean-up company alleging that the company violated federal law by discriminating against and racially harassing African American employees, including the display of hangman’s nooses.  More specifically, the EEOC Press Release states that the company subjected its black workers to a racially hostile work environment, discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, and unlawfully retaliated against an employee when he complained about the discrimination.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-16-09.html .  According to the Press Release, the lawsuit also alleges that the company created a hostile work environment for a white worker who associated with African American employees.  The EEOC’s District Director in Chicago claimed in the Press Release that black employees were subjected to a noose exhibited on a white co-worker’s vehicle.  When the workers complained to the superintendent about the noose, he allegedly took no action, but rather responded that “maybe the white employee liked the noose.”  The District Director added that the EEOC’s investigation found that white workers referred to black co-workers as “n—-rs” and other racially derogatory terms.  One of the white workers who stood up for the African American workers was referred to as a “n—-r lover” and subjected to other derogatory comments and treatment.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “Because of Title VII - which is the law of the land - there is no longer any place for racism in any American workplace covered by federal law, especially the virulent and open sort alleged here.” 

In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC may be located in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related race discrimination and harassment occurs in Texas or elsewhere, victims of workplace racial harassment may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a racial harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

A judge who awarded a $160,000 default judgment last month to a Beaumont man who said his civil rights were violated when he was beaten by a cop will preside over a hearing today that might put the issue back to square one. A clerk in District Court Judge Donald Floyd’s court said that a representative of the Reaud, Morgan and Quinn law firm filed the motion for the hearing, but would not identify the individual.

An attorney at the law office said that he was not aware of anyone at the firm representing any of the five Beaumont police officers named in the lawsuit. The default judgment was entered after all five Beaumont policemen named in Derrick Newman’s lawsuit failed to appear in court personally or by legal representative.  Assistant City Attorney Joseph Sanders said a decision never had been made as to whether the city would represent the officers, and the city was not named in the original lawsuit. Still, the city tried to resolve the matter by offering the 37-year-old Newman a $10,000 settlement, which he refused, attorney Langston Adams said.

At the conclusion of an internal affairs investigation, Police Chief Frank Coffin Jr. sent Newman a letter dated Feb. 20, 2008, saying that a disciplinary review board had said Newman’s allegation of the beating was supported by evidence and that a violation had occurred.

Named in the suit were James Cody Guedry, Charles J. Duchamp III, David Todd Burke, Jason J. Torres and John David Brown. Court documents showed that attempts to serve the men with subpoenas were unsuccessful, and the paperwork later was dropped off at the Beaumont Police Department. The incident occurred about midnight on Aug. 24, 2007, when Newman and two friends were coming back from picking up quesadillas at Cheddar’s Casual Cafe.

Police stopped the Nissan Sentra for failing to yield to an oncoming vehicle, saying it had turned too soon at a green light from Lavaca onto Highland, Newman said Thursday while sitting at a booth at a downtown restaurant. Two officers approached and asked for the three men’s driver’s licenses. The driver was charged with failure to yield, while the back seat passenger had an outstanding warrant and was arrested. It took two officers to do that, and Newman said that he and the driver felt the car being nudged during the encounter. He said he and the driver got out of the car and told the passenger to calm down. After putting the man in the back seat of the patrol car, one of the officers asked Newman to place his hands on the back of the Nissan so that he could be searched. Soon two other patrol cars arrived.

Neman claims Burke was carrying a wooden club when he got out of one car and as soon as he approached, started using it to hit him on his right arm and leg. “To this day, I don’t know what it was that made him strike me,” Newman said. “Once he started hitting me, my mind went blank. Everybody was trying to tell me to get down and be still.” Later, another officer Tasered him twice, he said. Newman said the other officers should have stopped their colleagues. “They weren’t protecting me. They weren’t doing their job. I know if I had tried to protect myself they would have stepped in to protect him,” Newman said.

Newman said once he was in the holding cell, the officer winked and blew kisses at him. Newman was charged with resisting arrest, but those charges later were dropped, he said. Newman said if Terrence Holmes, who represented him on the resisting arrest charge, hadn’t told him that he should file a complaint with the police department’s internal affairs division, he never would have known that he could do it. And he says if the officers hadn’t arrested him, he wouldn’t have filed a complaint.

“I know so many people who got beat up by the laws and didn’t know what to do,” Newman said. “If they don’t take you to jail a lot of people are happy to go home, especially young people.”

Newman eventually saw a copy of the dash camera recording of the incident. “It’s brutal. It’s brutal. A man is getting beat with a stick,” he said as he shook his head. “I’m still upset about it. It was bad. It’s not something I’d want to keep looking at.”

written by Dee Dixon (Beaumont Enterprises)

Officials in the east Texas town of Paris said Thursday they are preparing for an influx of black separatists and white supremacists at a planned protest next week over the death of a black man who was run over by a truck and dragged. The Lamar County Commissioner’s Court has created designated zones for protesters to help police maintain order Tuesday, the day a rally organized by the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party is scheduled outside the county courthouse.

The protest is the third related to the death of 24-year-old Brandon McClelland, whose mangled body was found Sept. 16 on a country road outside Paris, about 90 miles northeast of Dallas. Authorities estimated McClelland’s body had been dragged more than 70 feet beneath a vehicle.

Two white men, Shannon Finley and Charles Crostley, were charged with murdering McClelland by running him down in Finley’s pickup after the three friends made a late-night beer run from their dry town across state lines to Oklahoma. But a special prosecutor dismissed the charges last month, citing a lack of evidence, and the men were released after more than eight months in jail.

The previous protests by the Panthers and the Nation of Islam were mostly peaceful and resulted in no arrests. But authorities said there were hints of white supremacist groups showing up this time.

“We have some very specific intel that there would be some counter-protestors — white supremacists, KKK, skinheads — who wish to attend,” said Bill Harris, the first assistant county and district attorney for Lamar County.

At the November and June protests, there were a handful of white supremacists led by Rock Banks, a self-professed grand titan of the East Texas Ku Klux Klan. Words flew in June when Banks waded into the crowd holding aloft a patch depicting a Nazi-era Iron Cross. The KKK, the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party are considered hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The racial implications of the McClelland case have reminded some of the murder of James Byrd, a black man who was chained by the ankles to a pickup by three white men and dragged to death in 1998 in the east Texas town of Jasper.

Lamar County Judge Chuck Superville said the protest zones are designed to separate members of the Nation of Islam and the Panthers from white supremacists. Law enforcement officials requested the zones as a proactive step to avoid conflict.

Main Street, which runs along the east side of the courthouse, will serve as a dividing line, Superville said. He said he is trying to balance free speech rights with public safety concerns and the desire to keep open the courthouse. “We are going to preserve the peace,” the judge said. “This place is more like Mayberry than Jasper.” Brenda Cherry, a community activist in Paris who leads the Concerned Citizens for Racial Equality group, called the commissioners’ decision “racist and ignorant.”

“They are trying to stifle us and violate our constitutional rights,” she said.

Associated Press