The U.S. Labor Department has settled a lawsuit in which two Texas companies were accused of not paying $1 million in overtime to 154 workers. Those workers inspected temporary housing trailers occupied by people who lost their homes during 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.

Federal labor officials announced Wednesday that Irving, Texas-based Fluor Enterprises Inc. agreed to pay the overtime as part of a consent judgment approved in a Houston federal court. The Labor Department also obtained a default judgment against Houston-based Universal Project Management Inc., a subcontractor used by Fluor. According to court documents, Fluor admitted no wrongdoing in the case, saying it wasn’t the workers’ employer.

Universal Project Management failed to answer the claims against it in court. An attorney for Universal was not listed in court records and no public listing for the company could be found.  Associated Press February 10, 2010.

The United States Department of Labor (DOL) announced in a January 29, 2010 News Release posted at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/whd20100073.htm that it has recovered more than $1 million in overtime back wages for 798 former and current processing workers at a poultry processor’s Dallas facility.  According to the DOL News Release, the poultry processing company also agreed to pay for time spent by employees “donning and doffing,” or putting on and taking off work-related gear in all processing plants nationwide.  As stated in the News Release, the agreement marks another major step in the DOL’s poultry initiative, which is aimed at ensuring that the poultry processing industry pays its workers all wages to which they are entitled.  In this regard, the agreement settles allegations that Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation failed to properly pay overtime back wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The FLSA’s overtime violations occurred allegedly in part because the company failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, including time spent putting on and taking off protective clothing.  Additionally, required recordkeeping was allegedly not maintained.  The DOL’s legal action followed an investigation by the Wage and Hour Division.

For more information about the FLSA, one may call the Wage and Hour Division’s Dallas District Office at 817-861-2150 or the DOL’s toll-free helpline at 866-487-9243.  Information is also made available on the internet at http://www.wagehour.dol.gov . 

Whether overtime wage payment violations occur in Dallas, Corpus Christi, Houston or elsewhere, victims may contact the DOL or an attorney to determine if a wage compensation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential FLSA violation claim.

The Associated Press reported on October 5, 2009 that a former pharmacist at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. who claimed she was fired after asking to be paid the same as her male colleagues is entitled to $2 million in damages awarded by a jury, according to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  See, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113515362 .  As stated in the article, Cynthia Haddad was fired in 2004 after working more than 10 years for the company, seven of them at a store in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.  While the company claimed that Haddad was fired because she left the pharmacy unattended and allowed a technician to use her computer security code to issue prescriptions during her absence, Haddad alleged in her discrimination lawsuit that she was fired because she complained about being paid less than her male counterparts, including a bonus given to pharmacy managers.  It states in the article that the company paid the bonus, and then fired Haddad two weeks later. 

As described in the article, a jury found in 2007 that the company discriminated against Haddad, and awarded her $1 million in compensatory damages and another $1 million in punitive damages, but a judge later revoked the $1 million in punitive damages, finding there was an insufficient basis for the jury’s decision.  However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinstated the punitive damages and upheld the total verdict, ruling that the jury had enough evidence to find that the company’s stated motive for the firing was a pretext and that the company acted with “discriminatory animus.”

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) filed a federal lawsuit against a flooring company claiming that the North Carolina based business discriminated against blacks and Hispanics by paying them less than their white counterparts.  According to the EEOC Press Release found at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-15-09.html , the company allegedly discriminated against a black employee and other black and Hispanic employees when it paid them lower wages than white coworkers who performed the same jobs.  As stated in the Press Release, the discriminatory wage payments have occurred since at least March 2006.  Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and, in this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including race related pay or wage discrimination.  An EEOC trial attorney quoted in the Press Release stated that “Under Title VII it is unlawful for an employer to determine employees’ pay based on their race, national origin or other protected class status; therefore, black and Hispanic employees doing the same or similar work should not be paid less than whites.”  Further information about the EEOC is available in the federal agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov .

The U. S. Department of Labor announced in a recent News Release that a healthcare system company and its affiliated hospitals have agreed to pay 700 employees more than $2.7 million in overtime back wages to resolve an overtime lawsuit.  The lawsuit was brought by the Department of Labor and alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  According to the News Release, the FLSA requires that employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage, and time and one-half their regular rates of pay for hours worked beyond 40 per week.  Further, the Department of Labor stated that the law also requires that employers maintain accurate records of employees’ wages, hours and conditions of employment.  Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis was quoted in the News Release as saying: “We are pleased that the department has succeeded in securing such a substantial amount of back wages for these workers who were not properly paid for overtime they had worked.”   For further information concerning this Department of Labor News Release see http://www.dol.gov/opa/press/esa/esa20090438.htm .

Workers with employment related wage overtime complaints may contact the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division toll free at 866-487-9243 and consult an attorney to determine if an unpaid overtime lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate.

Saying that “sex-based pay discrimination is an unlawful employment practice that will not be tolerated by the EEOC,” an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) attorney announced filing of a wage discrimination lawsuit in which the federal agency alleges that a weight loss center violated federal law by paying two female employees less than a male employee who performed the same duties.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-30-09b.html .  According to the EEOC Press Release, the two female employees worked in the position of director of franchise development and a male employee was hired and paid a significantly higher salary in his position as director of franchise development.  As stated in the Press Release, the EEOC’s investigation revealed that there was no significant difference between the duties performed by the male employee and the female employees.  Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act, which protects people against wage discrimination because of sex.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and the EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary out of court settlement.  Further information about the EEOC is available in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

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

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a June 17, 2009 EEOC Press Release that an international military contractor will pay $110,000.00 and furnish other relief to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC in Arizona.  According to the EEOC Press Release, agency attorneys charged in the lawsuit that the company discriminated against three female temporary employees by paying them less than male employees who performed the same job duties and by not making them permanent employees.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-17-09a.html . 

Whether employment related unequal pay occurs in New Braunfels, San Marcos, San Antonio or elsewhere, victims of pay discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if an equal pay lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential pay discrimination claim.

The United States Department of Labor (”DOL”) enforces federal laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (”FLSA”) and, as stated by the DOL, the FLSA requires covered, nonexempt employees to, for example, be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour for all hours worked, and time and one-half their regular rates of pay for hours worked beyond 40 in a week.  For more information about the FLSA, one can call the DOL’s toll-free helpline at 866-4US-WAGE and visit a DOL website at www.wagehour.dol.gov .

In this regard, a January 29, 2009 DOL Wage and Hour Division Press Release announed that the DOL recovered $24,360 in back wages for seven (7) restaurant employees in Omaha, following an investigation by the department’s Wage and Hour Division.  See, www.dol.gov .  According to the DOL Press Release, the investigation found that the restaurant company violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA by not paying the employees time and one-half their regular rates for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek.  The DOL reported in the Press Release that the investigation was conducted as part of an ongoing regional effort to increase FLSA compliance in the restaurant industry.

In a separate February 18, 2009 Press Release, the DOL announced that it obtained an Order holding an Andover, Kansas restaurant business and its president in Contempt of a Consent Injunction issued on August 14, 2003.  See, www.dol.gov .  According to the DOL Press Release, a U.S. District Court, in September 2008, found the restaurant company in contempt of court for failing to pay $302,421 in back wages to nineteen (19) restaurant employees and ordered immediate payment, as well as an equal amount as compensation for delay in the payment of wages.  As stated in the DOL Press Release, employers of tipped employees must pay a cash wage of at least $2.13 per hour if they claim a tip credit against their minimum wage obligation.  Further, if an employee’s tips combined with the employer’s cash wage of at least $2.13 per hour do not equal the minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference, but certain other conditions must also be met.  More information about the FLSA is available on the internet at www.wagehour.dol.gov and www.dol.gov/compliance . 

Whether employment related unlawful or unfair pay occurs in Corpus Christi, Houston, San Antonio or elsewhere, victims of unfair pay may contact the DOL and an attorney or lawyer to determine if an unfair pay lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the potential unfair wage claim.

According to AP National Writer, Jesse Washington a transformation in hiring may be at hand.  Reverse Discrimination Case May Transform Hiring, http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/the_state_of_black_america_news/8656/1

Inside a burning building, fire doesn’t discriminate between Matthew Marcarelli and Gary Tinney. Inside the New Haven Fire Department, however, skin color has put them on opposite sides of a lawsuit that could transform hiring procedures nationwide.

This week, the Supreme Court will consider the reverse discrimination claim of Marcarelli and a group of white firefighters. They all passed a promotion exam, but the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted, saying the exam had a “disparate impact” on minorities likely to violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Besides affecting how race can be considered in filling government and perhaps even private jobs, the dispute also addresses broader questions about racial progress: Do minorities and women still need legal protection from discrimination, or do the monumental civil rights laws that created a more equal nation now cause more harm than good?

Also, beneath the specific details of the firefighters’ lawsuit lies an uncomfortable truth: On most standardized tests, regardless of the subject, blacks score lower than whites.

Reconciling that reality with efforts to ensure “justice for all” remains a work in progress - one that will be molded by the Supreme Court.   Jesse Washington, Blacks In America.  This impact will be felt in Houston as well as other metro cities.

New Haven’s population is 44 percent white, 36 percent black and 24 percent Hispanic (who can be any race). At the time of the 2003 test, 53 percent of the city’s firefighters, 63 percent of lieutenants and 86 percent of captains were white. Blacks were 30 percent of the firefighters, 22 percent of lieutenants and 4 percent of captains.

The promotion exams were closely focused on firefighting methods, knowledge and skills. The first part had 200 multiple-choice questions and counted for 60 percent of the final score. Candidates returned another day to take an oral exam in which they described responses to various scenarios, which counted for 40 percent. http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/the_state_of_black_america_news/8656/1
Tinney, a black lieutenant who has been a firefighter for 14 years, was seeking a promotion to captain when he took the exam. He says both the test and his fire department have hidden biases against minorities: The department is historically white, with the first blacks joining in 1957, and jobs, relationships, knowledge and choice assignments are passed on from friend to friend and generation to generation.

“I just call it ‘the network,’” Tinney says. The white firefighters’ attorney, Karen Torre, said they would not be interviewed for this story. In a conversation on Fox News’ “Hannity” program, Marcarelli said it was “gut wrenching” to learn that he was No. 1 on the test but would not get promoted. “It’s something that shakes what you believe in. Because you believe if you work hard, you’re rewarded for that, and that’s not necessarily the case,” Marcarelli said. Torre said whites have no special advantage in promotions because of laws requiring use of a race-blind, score-based system. She added that many blacks have relatives on the force, including high-ranking officers.

One hundred and eighteen people took the tests; 56 passed. Nineteen of the top scorers were eligible for promotion to 15 open lieutenant and captain positions. Based on the test results, the city said that no minorities would have been eligible for lieutenant, and two Hispanics would have been eligible for captain. (The lawsuit was filed by 20 white plaintiffs, including one man who is both white and Hispanic.)

The exams were designed by a professional testing firm that followed federal guidelines for mitigating disparate racial outcomes, the plaintiffs say.  But after the results came back, the city says it found evidence that the tests were potentially flawed. Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather ….. ….. than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

“I’m sure there are numerous reasons why (blacks didn’t do as well), and not because we’re not as intelligent,” Tinney says. “There’s a lot of underlying issues to that … these folks are saying, ‘We studied the hardest, we passed the test, we should be promoted.’ But they’re not talking about all the other things.”

Torre argues that discarding a test because no minorities would have been promoted violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination because of race.  Call it a legal riddle only the Supreme Court could solve: The white firefighters say Title VII prohibits discrimination against them for being white; New Haven says Title VII prohibits it from using a test that has a disparate impact against blacks.

“All were afforded the same notice, the same study period, the same exam syllabi, etc.,” said Torre, who would only answer questions by e-mail. “The rest was up to the individual.” There are long-standing divisions over the concept of hardworking, qualified whites being “victimized” by laws or practices designed to help minorities overcome America’s history of racism. What’s different today is that the landscape has shifted in many ways, big and small.

The biggest is the election of President Barack Obama, and the support he received from millions of white voters.  “It is not white racism that plays the deciding role in the success of minorities any more,” says Edward Blum, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who believes that race should not be considered in employment decisions.

“That was the case in the ’60s and ’70s and maybe even part of the ’80s,” he says. “But it is no longer the case in the 21st century that because you are black you are being held back from achieving what your parents and your ambitions will allow you to achieve. I think that has been crystallized with the election of President Obama.” Obama’s election has been a boon to the movement that developed years ago seeking to reshape civil rights laws designed to remedy discrimination.

Besides the firefighters’ lawsuit, the Supreme Court will soon hear a case seeking to overturn a Voting Rights Act requirement that all or parts of 16 states with a history of discrimination must get approval from the Justice Department before changing election procedures. And in 2007, the court struck down voluntary integration plans in two public school districts. Even though it may result in less opportunities for qualified minorities, “the use of race does greater harm to our social fabric by being there than by being eliminated,” Blum says.

Another major shift has been in the balance of the Supreme Court. Conservatives gained a 5-4 majority during the Bush administration, although Justice Anthony Kennedy is seen as a potential swing vote.

In Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion in the 2007 school ruling, one line rang loudest: “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” That statement was seen as a harbinger of future rulings that would end the use of race in employment, voting and awarding government contracts. It also rebutted a famous statement by Justice Harry Blackmun in the landmark Bakke affirmative action case: “In order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”

Mary Frances Berry, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania and head of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights during the Clinton administration, said the firefighters’ case has broad implications.  “This is about whether we are going to see a sea change in how the judiciary looks at the need for these (protections), and how the popular culture and electoral politics influence their perceptions,” Berry said.

The Obama administration has said such laws are needed and it is committed to enforcing them. The Justice Department’s brief in the firefighters case supports New Haven’s position that the city acted properly in throwing out the tests.  But in what many call a political maneuver designed to avoid taking sides, the Justice Department stopped short of saying the firefighters’ case should be dismissed, instead recommending that it be remanded to a lower court to determine if city’s decision was a pretext for intentional discrimination.

Polls show varying levels of support for affirmative action programs. In an AP-Yahoo poll conducted in December 2007 through January 2008, one-quarter of respondents favored affirmative action programs and 37 percent opposed them. Another 36 percent neither favored nor opposed them.  Jesse Washington, Black In America, April 2009

A September 2007 Pew poll, which did not give people the option to say they had no opinion, found that 46 percent of people said they favored affirmative action programs that give special preferences to qualified blacks in hiring and education, while 40 percent opposed such programs.

Last November, Colorado voters became the first in the nation to reject a ban on state affirmative action programs. Similar measures have been approved in Nebraska, California, Michigan and Washington.

Supreme Court observers predict the firefighters’ lawsuit will be decided by a 5-4 margin, with Justice Kennedy casting the deciding vote. His past decisions give hope to both sides.

In the recent Voting Rights Act decision that made it harder for some minority candidates to win election when voting districts are redrawn, Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that “racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient history. Much remains to be done to ensure that citizens of all races have equal opportunity to share and participate in our democratic processes and traditions.”  ”It would be an irony, however,” Kennedy continued, if civil rights laws were used to “entrench racial differences.” Jesse Washington, Black In America, April 2009
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/the_state_of_black_america_news/8656/1

According to a March 24, 2009 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Press Release, EEOC attorneys announced the settlement of a pay discrimination lawsuit filed the EEOC, alleging that Adelphi University paid a group of women professors less than male professors performing the same work.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov .  As stated in the Press Release, the EEOC lawsuit alleged, in essence, that a class of full-time female professors was paid less than male professors of the same or lesser rank teaching within the same school and that this violation had been ongoing since at least April of 2004.  In addition, the Press Release stated that pay discrimination by gender violates the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Whether pay discrimination in employment occurs in Houston, Texas or elsewhere, victims of unequal pay may contact the EEOC to file a charge of discrimination and contact an attorney to determine if a pay discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances the particular potential case.