Without admitting guilt, a Beaumont City Attorney announced that Beaumont’s City Council approved a $65,000 racial discrimination lawsuit settlement, according to a Beaumont Enterprise posting.  See, http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/local/beaumont_pays_65_000_to_settle_ex-officer_s_suit.html . 

As stated in the January 27, 2010 posting, the mediated settlement goes to a former Beaumont Police Officer who filed an employment discrimination lawsuit in October, alleging he faced retaliation and harassment after writing a letter to a captain asking to be reassigned to a different sergeant.  The police officer claimed his supervisor retaliated by making false allegations that made the officer the subject of an internal affairs investigation.  In addition, he claimed that another sergeant twice inserted the initials “KKK” into his last name on a shift lineup list.  The sergeants remain employed with the Beaumont Police Department, and, according to the Beaumont City Attorney, the settlement amount is based on the City cutting its losses by assessing how much it would cost the City if the case had gone to trial. 

In Texas, the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division (TWCCRD) enforces the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act; which has been codified into Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.  The Texas Labor Code prohibits certain forms of employment discrimination, including racial discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it.  In this regard, the TWCCRD enforces these state laws.  For its own part, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces federal laws prohibiting employment related racial discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it.  More information about the TWCCRD may be found at http://www,twc.state.tx.us/crd/file_emp.html and further information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces may be found at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether employment related racial discrimination and retaliation occurs in Beaumont or elsewhere in Texas, victims may contact the TWCCRD and the EEOC, as well as a lawyer, to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential race discrimination claim.

United States Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers announced in a January 22, 2010 Press Release at http://www.justice.gov that a Louisiana man was convicted by a Shreveport, Louisiana jury in connection with a civil rights conspiracy, use of fire in commission of a federal felony, and obstruction of justice related to a cross burning near the home of an interracial couple in Athens, Louisiana.  According to the DOJ Press Release, trial evidence revealed that the man agreed with two cousins to build, erect, and burn a cross near the homes of a cousin and her African American boyfriend (now husband) and other relatives who approved of their interracial relationship.  As further stated in the Press Release, the cross was set on fire to intimidate the victims.  An Assistant Attorney General with the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division was quoted as saying: “The defendant and co-conspirators, driven by hatred, threatened a family with violence simply because they associated with persons of another race,” adding that “Incidents of this kind have no place in this country, but they are regrettably all too common.”

In a Press Release at http://www.justice.gov , lawyers with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the settlement of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination lawsuit against the owners and operators of an Alabama RV Resort.  According to the January 19, 2010 DOJ Press Release, lawyers charged that the company violated Title III of the ADA when it unlawfully denied full and equal services to a child and his family because the child has HIV.  More specifically, the complaint alleged that the company, upon learning that a guest family’s two-year-old child had HIV, banned the family from using the common areas of the RV resort, such as the swimming pools and showers.  As stated in the Press Release, the family left the RV resort after the company denied them full use of the facilities. 

Under the terms of the consent decree, the company will establish policies, procedures and training practices to ensure that patrons and their families are not discriminated against on the basis of disability.  In addition, the company will pay a civil penalty to the United States and $36,000 in damages to the affected family.

Title III of the ADA prohibits public accommodations from excluding people with disabilities, including people with HIV, from enjoying the services, goods, and accommodations provided by the public accommodation.  In this regard, those interested in finding out more about federal disability rights statutes can call the Justice Department’s toll free ADA Information Line at 1(800)514-0301 or 1(800)514-0383, or access the ADA website at www.ada.gov .

In an employment law news release posted by www.justice.org on January 7, 2010, the American Association for Justice (AAJ) announced that a jury has awarded lost wages, emotional distress and punitive damages against a company that demanded the resignation of a worker who served jury duty.  According to the AAJ, when a security guard told her boss that she had been called for jury duty, her boss allegedly discouraged her from serving, saying she should stay at work.  After the security guard complied with the summons and served three days on a criminal trial, she presented a letter from the judge verifying her service and requesting payment for work time missed.  As stated in the AAJ news release, the company refused to pay her and demoted and transferred her.  About a month later, the security guard’s boss allegedly gave her a letter accusing her of fraud and demanding that she provide additional documentation of her jury service or a letter of resignation.  The letter stated as well that is she did not provide one of those, she would be referred to the state attorney and the division of licensing, according to the AAJ.  The security guard resigned and filed a lawsuit under a state statute that prohibited employers from threatening or dismissing employees for the length or nature of their jury service.

Lawyers with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Memphis Office have resolved a Memphis race discrimination lawsuit against Memphis Goodwill Industries, Inc., a non-profit agency. In an EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-22-10.cfm , the federal agency announced that the company will pay $105,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in which EEOC lawyers charged the company with firing a transportation director in retaliation for reporting alleged race discrimination and because of her race, black.  As stated in the January 22, 2010 Press Release, the EEOC also alleged that the vice president of operations chastised a group of African Americans by stating, “This is not the ghetto.”  When the former transportation director complained to the vice president of operations, she received her first written reprimand from him within days and after receiving a second write-up less than 30 days later she was fired.  According to the EEOC Press Release, a white male was hired as manager of transportation after the firing.  An EEOC lawyer in Memphis was quoted in the Press Release as stating, in part, that “Employees must be able to complain about practices which they believe violate the law without fear of retribution.”

In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including racial discrimination and retaliation for reporting it.  More information about the EEOC is available in its website at www.eeoc.gov .

A Houston newspaper reported on January 17, 2010 that shootings by police officers in agencies across Harris County reached the highest level in nearly two decades in 2009, with 60 civilians being shot - 27 of whom were killed.  See, Olsen, Lise and James Pinkerton, “The Rise of Deadly Force,” Houston Chronicle, 1/17/10, p. 1.  As reported in the article, that amount is nearly twice as many shootings as the area’s annual average, based on the last five years of reports.  While most of the people shot were armed, the article states that, in December, a man was shot and wounded by a rookie Houston Police Department officer who believed the man was wielding a gun.  However, the man held a hairbrush.  In addition, the article states that in several other shootings, people initiated confrontations with police and drew weapons after being surrounded by officers or SWAT teams in what family members described as attempts to “commit suicide by cop.” 

As further reported in the article, Houston Police Department Interim Police Chief Charles McClelland stated that the Houston Police Department (HPD) responds to over a million calls a year and has 3,600 men and women in uniform on patrol.  He added that officers do not want to have to shoot.

According to the news report, HPD officers participated in 29 shootings in 2009, involving 15 deaths and 13 injuries.  In this regard, the article stated that the total for HPD is about the same as reported by the far larger Los Angeles Police Department, which had 27 shootings, resulting in 12 deaths. 

Questions over 2009’s record shootings mirror issues raised in the past by lawyers and civil rights activists.  According to one Houston lawyer, Houston leaders have failed to keep promises to prevent deaths of unarmed citizens.  The founder of Civilians Down, a citizens rights group focused on shootings of the mentally ill, added that shootings of the mentally ill are troubling and if there is no change then unnecessary and unjustified shootings will continue to occur.

Whether excessive use of force and use of unjustified deadly force by police officers occurs in Houston or Harris County, Texas, victims of police mistreatment may contact local law enforcement or the United States Department of Justice to determine if further action is warranted.  In addition, excessive and deadly force victims may contact a lawyer to determine if a civil rights lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the potential civil rights violation claim.

Lawyers with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced in a January 14, 2010 Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-14-10.cfm that a car dealership will pay $140,000 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC.  According to the Press Release, EEOC lawyers charged in the case that a car dealership allowed a white male management consultant to subject an African American sales manager to a racially hostile work environment over a four month period.  As stated in Press Release, the white consultant visited the car dealership three to four times a week and never missed an opportunity to make racially derogatory comments towards the black sales manager.  The sales manager was allegedly subjected to humiliating and degrading comments every time the consultant visited the dealership and almost always in the presence of other people.  The EEOC Press Release further states that after the black sales manager complained about the derogatory comments, two white managers asked the consultant to stop his discriminatory behavior, but the consultant ignored their requests to cease and continued to make derogatory comments.  In the suit and consent decree, the company denied any liability or wrongdoing.

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

The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) announced on January 14, 2010 that Congress, at the end of its last session, enacted the “Jamie Leigh Jones Amendment” (also known as the Franken Amendment in section 8116 of the Defense Appropriations Act for 2010).  Signed by President Obama on December 19, 2009, the Franken Amendment is the first federal legislation that prevents employers from forcing pre-dispute, binding arbitration on their employees.  The Franken Amendment prohibits the award of Department of Defense contracts of over one million dollars to any company that forces its employees or independent contractors to submit to pre-dispute binding arbitration of Title VII and sexual assault related tort claims (with certain exemptions).

According to NELA, the Franken Amendment will protect hundreds of thousands of employees around the country from being forced to arbitrate their Title VII claims; it is estimated that 80% of defense contractors exceed the Amendment’s one million dollar threshold.  NELA reports that a list of the 2009 top 100 defense contractors can be found at http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009.aspx .  Also, more information can be found at http://www.governmentcontractorswon.com/default.asp .   Further in this regard, NELA states that the Amendment provides a major new legal tool for employees to use to strike down forced arbitration clauses imposed by their employers who are federal defense contractors or subcontractors, and sets an important prcedent for efforts to eliminate forced arbitration in other employment and consumer contexts.

The list of covered sexual assault-related tort claims is reportedly quite extensive, encompassing “any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision or retention.” 

Importantly, employees protected by the Franken Amendment can invoke it to defeat motions to compel forced arbitration.  Further information about NELA’s comments on the Amendment may be located at www.nela.org .  For its own part, NELA advances employee rights and serves lawyers who advocate for equality and justice in the American workplace.

In a Press Release at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/January/10-crt-032.html , U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys announced on January 13, 2010 that a former Texas Department of Public Safety trooper was convicted by a federal court jury in Corpus Christi, Texas for violating federal law by willfully stealing money from motorists that he had stopped on the highway while working as a trooper.  According to the DOJ Press Release, the former trooper was prosecuted for stopping motorists who appeared to be of Hispanic descent and stealing their money, usually in amounts of several hundred dollars.  As further stated in the Press Release, civilian complaints triggered an undercover operation by the Texas Department of Public Safety, in conjunction with the Texas Rangers, to investigate the trooper.  In the investigation, an undercover officer posed as a civilian of Hispanic descent with limited English language ability.  He was issued several pre-recorded $100 bills.  Upon being stopped by the trooper, the undercover officer was asked for money in his possession which he then took behind the passenger side door of his patrol vehicle.  After the former trooper returned bills to the officer, the officer realized that some of the money was missing, so Texas Rangers and Department of Public Safety officers confronted the trooper and, upon inspection of the partol vehicle, found two of the pre-recorded $100 bills secreted in the passenger side door pocket next to the area where he had gone to count the money, according to the DOJ.

A DOJ attorney quoted in the Press Release stated that “[t]he defendant abused the power granted to him as a law enforcement officer to prey upon unsuspecting motorists for personal gain.”  The defendant faces a maximum sentence of up to four years in prison, restitution and a $400,000.00 fine.  Sentencing has been set for April 20, 2010.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates the full and equal enjoyment of rights in places of public accommodation regardless of race, color, religion or national origin, and enforcement of Title II is a priority of the U. S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division (DOJ).  In this regard, DOJ attorneys issued a Press Release at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/January/10-crt-033.html on January 13, 2010, announcing that the DOJ filed a lawsuit against a Pennsylvania country club, accusing the club of engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race or color.  According to the Press Release, DOJ attorneys charge in the discrimination lawsuit that the club adopted a racially discriminatory policy to bar summer camps from using its facility after a group of predominantly African-American school children visited the facility.  The DOJ’s lawsuit seeks to obtain injunctive relief under Title II to remedy such discrimination by changing policies and practices.  An Assistant Attorney General quoted in the Press Release stated, in part, that “[d]enying African-American children entry to a swimming pool because of the color of their skin is a deplorable violation of this nation’s civil rights laws.”

Additional information about the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is available on the DOJ’s website which can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt .  Further, persons with information or complaints about discriminatory practices at public facilities may call the DOJ at 1-800-896-7743, ext. 997.

Whether civil rights violations in places of public accommodation occurs in Texas or elsewhere, victims may contact the DOJ or an attorney to determine if a civil rights lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential civil rights violation claim.