In a press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-18-10a.cfm , the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states that a nationwide temporary employment agency will pay $75,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC lawyers.  According to the March 18, 2010 press release, EEOC lawyers charged that the company violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to refer a deaf applicant for temporary employment as a production worker at a food products manufacturer.  The EEOC said that on two occasions, a company staffing specialist decided not to refer the applicant to the food products business because he is deaf, despite his meeting all the actual qualifications for the job.  In this regard, the EEOC asserted that evidence it obtained indicated that hearing ability was not a requirement of the food production job, and, as stated in the press release, workplace noise required a number of employees there to wear ear protection that prevented them from hearing while working.  An EEOC lawyer quoted in the press release said, in part, that “Decisions made by agencies concerning whether to refer a job applicant must be based on qualifications, period - not on the basis of disability.”

The EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including disability discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces may be found in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether workplace disability discrimination against the deaf or hearing impaired occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims 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 disability discrimination claim.

A Houston based concrete company will pay $135,000 to settle a national origin, age and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against its Memphis subsidiary, according to an EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-11-10b.cfm .  As stated in the press release, EEOC lawyers charged in the employment discrimination lawsuit that company officials harassed and discriminated against a Thai-American employee because of his East Asian national origin and age.  The sales technician was allegedly called “J-p” even though he is of Thai ancestry.  In addition, the EEOC contended that the employee was subjected to insensitive ageist comments and then removed from the sales department and demoted to a driver job because of his age and national origin.  After complaining about the discrimination, he was further harassed, including being assigned to defective trucks, and repeatedly threatened with firing.  Moreover, after the company moved him out of sales, it hired two unqualified white men into that department, without an application process that would have given him the chance to apply for the positions.  The EEOC asserted that the Thai-American employee ultimately resigned when the work environment became too hostile to endure. 

Such alleged misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  In this regard, the EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

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

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace religious discrimination.  In this regard, an EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-10-10a.cfm states that a contract security company has been sued by the federal agency for alleged unlawful discrimination against an employee because of her religion.  According to the press release, EEOC attorneys charge in the case that the company violated federal law by firing the employee from a client location rather than accommodating her beliefs as a Mennonite Baptist that she cover her hair with a scarf.  As further stated in the press release, EEOC attorneys contend that the employee was fired when the company insisted, as a condition of her continued employment, that she remove and refrain from wearing her head scarf on the job.  In this regard, the lawsuit contends that the employee attempted to explain that her religion required her to wear the scarf, but the company refused to accommodate her and terminated her.

Such alleged misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs as long as this does not pose an undue hardship on the business.  For further information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces, see www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether unlawful religion based employment discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a religious discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appopriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential religious discrimination claim.

The March issue of Trial reports that a jury has awarded three men $175,000 in a lawsuit against the City of Portland where the plaintiffs alleged that police officers used excessive force.  See, Trial, 3/10, p. 14.  More specifically, the plaintiffs, each of whom is African American, contended that they were subjected to assault, battery, false arrest and excessive force motivated by racial stereotypes.  In this regard, the lawsuit charged that the plaintiffs were returning to their vehicle after a St. Patrick’s Day celebration when they were stopped by police officers as they got into their car in a parking garage.  One plaintiff, who had his seat belt on, immediately informed the officers that he was carrying a gun but had a concealed weapon permit. 

The police officers then allegedly started yelling at the men and drew their weapons, pointing them at the men’s heads as one officer sliced through the seat belt with a knife and the three men were pulled from the car and handcuffed.  The man with the concealed weapon permit was allegedly punched in the groin.  All three men feared they would be shot at any moment.  While the police officers argued in the case that they were just doing their jobs after receiving reports of a fight, the men were not arrested or given any explanation for why they had been stopped.

The jury award occurred in the case Hammick v. City of Portland, No. 0807-09735 (Or., Multnomah Co.Cir. Sept. 28, 2009).

Whether excessive force, assault, battery and false arrest by police occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims of police misconduct may make written complaints to the responsible law enforcement employer and contact an attorney to determine if a police excessive force lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential excessive force claim.

In a January 29, 2010 press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-18-09.cfm , the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that an assisted living company will pay $43,000 and furnish other relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by the federal agency.  According to the press release, EEOC attorneys charged in the employment discrimination case that the company discriminated against a female housekeeper by firing her rather than accommodating her religious belief that she wear a Muslim head scarf or hijab outside her home.  As further stated in the press release, the company insisted that, as a condition of her continued employment, the housekeeper remove and refrain from wearing her Muslim head scarf on the job.  Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers make an effort to accommodate employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs.  For its own part, the company denied any liability or wrongdoing.

The EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace religious discrimination.  Additional information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related religious discrimination against Muslims occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a religion based employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential Muslim employment discrimination case.

African-American News & Issues reporter Tuala Williams wrote recently that Pastor Kyev Tatum, president of the Fort Worth SCLC, is leading the charge amid cries of wrongful death in the matter of Michael Patrick Jacobs, Jr., 24.  See, Tuala, Williams, “Getting Away With Murder!” African-American News & Issues, Vol. 15, Issue 4, 2/24 - 3/2/10, p. 1.  According to the article, Jacobs, who suffered from bi-polar disorder, had stopped taking his medication because it was making him feel sick and began having difficulties inside his parents’ home, so his parents called 911 to request an ambulance.  Police, fire department officers and paramedics arrived, but the police decided to send the fire department and paramedics away, deciding to handle the call as a criminal issue.  As stated in the article, Jacobs continued to behave aggressively and was shot with a taser.  In all, he was reportedly tasered a total of 54 seconds in the presence of witnesses.  It was ruled a homicide by Dr. Nizam Peerwani of the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s office, who, according to the article, wrote in his report that Jacobs’ died of “sudden death during neuromuscular incapacitation due to the application of a conducted energy device.”  Additionally, an electrical engineer with TASER International testified before a grand jury that the two jolts of 50,000 volts exceeded the limits of use set by the manufacturer since TASER International contends that the weapons are not to be discharged for more than 5 seconds.  While Dr. Peerwani called it a homicide, the grand jury and the internal affairs department of the Fort Worth Police Department did not see it that way.  For his own part, Pastor Tatum was quoted as saying that “In Fort Worth, you can kill a Black man and nobody’ll say anything about it.”  Tatum has asked the U.S. Attorney’s office to pursue a federal civil rights investigation against the police department and Jacobs’ family has filed a federal court excessive force lawsuit.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace racial harassment and retaliation for complaining about it.  On December 31, 2009, EEOC lawyers announced that a Memphis radioactive waste processing company will pay $650,000 to 23 African American employees and provide other relief to settle a race and retaliation discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC in the Western District of Tennessee.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov.eeoc/newsroom/release/12-31-09a.cfm .  According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against Race, LLC doing business as Studsvik, LLC, a lead worker in the Studsvik shop and other African American employees were subjected to racially offensive comments by their white supervisor.  In addition, EEOC lawyers charged that the lead worker’s supervisor regularly referred to him and other African American employees with the N-word and other derogatory slurs, such as “boy.”  Moreover, white managers allegedly subjected the lead worker and other African American employees to excessive radiation exposure, more than their white co-workers.  As stated in the press release, EEOC lawyers further contended that the lead worker was suspended for 15 days and then laid off in retaliation for complaining about the racial harassment.  An EEOC lawyer with the agency’s Memphis District Office was quoted in the press release, saying, in part, that “Racial harassment remains a longstanding problem in the workplace for many minorities.”  EEOC Acting Chair Stuart Ishimaru added that “Some of the discrimination alleged in this case is unusually extreme because of the physical danger it created for African American employees.” 

Additional information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces may be found online in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related racial harassment and retaliation occurs in Memphis or elsewhere, victims of racial harassment 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 case.

Chron.com reported in a January 4, 2010 article by Matthew Tresaugue that a Houston company with a history of neighborhood and official complaints has been fined nearly $1.5 million for alleged safety violations after an investigation into a death at an industrial waste facility.  In the article posted at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6798145.html , Tresaugue writes that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) imposed the penalty against CES Environmental Services six months after an employee died when an explosion and flash fire at the Griggs Road plant knocked him from the top of a tanker truck that he was cleaning.  According to the article, the death was the third at CES facilities in less than a year.  As reported in the article, the company’s lawyer said it will fight the fines by the federal agency, which cited CES for 71 alleged violations in the fatality.  Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was quoted in the article as saying that “Employers should take steps to eliminate hazards and provide a safe working environment for their workers.”  The company’s president contends that the worker disregarded safety rules, but the deceased’s brother has complained that his brother was inadequately trained.  The work related death prompted a criminal probe by federal prosecutors and a lawsuit by the Texas attorney general that alleges 20 violations of state environmental laws.

WSOCTV.com posted a February 15, 2010 article regarding a North Carolina lawsuit filed on behalf of 12 current and former AAA Carolinas employees. According to WSCOTV.com, the plaintiffs allege that they were denied promotions and subjected to racial and sexual slurs by managers at AAA.  See, http://www.wsoctv.com , “Lawsuit Alleges Racial, Sexual Discrimination At AAA Carolinas,” 2/15/10.  As further stated in the article, the discrimination lawsuit also claims those managers favored white employees over African-American.  WSOCTV.com reports in the article that Eric Greene said he was demoted after complaining about being called “boy” and having to endure racial jokes, adding that, after filing a complaint with the EEOC, he got an anonymous letter saying: “You better drop those charges with the EEOC because if you don’t, something will happen to you and your family.”  In this regard, Greene claims his car was stolen and set on fire that same day.  For its own part, AAA issued a statement denying the allegations and stating it would vigorously defend itself in court. 

The EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including employer retaliation for complaining about and opposing unlawful racial and sexual discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .   

Whether illegal employment related racial and sexual discrimination, as well as retaliation for complaining about it, occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims of employment discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a racial or sexual discrimination and retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential discrimination case.

Health Leaders Media reports that state and national nurses associations are applauding a jury’s quick verdict to acquit a Texas nurse of felony charges for reporting a physician to a state oversight board for allegedly providing unsafe patient care.  In the February 12, 2010 posting at www.healthleadersmedia.com , the online publication states that Anne Mitchell, a registered nurse, was charged with misuse of official information, a third degree felony, for reporting Rolando Arafiles, MD, to the Texas Medical Board.  Had she been convicted, Mitchell could have faced up to 10 years in prison, but, after a four day trial, an Andrews, Texas state court jury needed less than one hour to acquit Mitchell.  For her own part, Mitchell contended she was just doing her job.  The American Nurses Association (ANA) called the case blatant retaliation and Rebecca Patton, the President of the ANA, said “Nurse whistle blowers should never be fired and criminally charged for reporting questionable medical care.”  A whistleblower lawsuit claiming damages for her alleged unlawful termination may follow now that the criminal proceeding has concluded.