According to a federal lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Oregon, two employees of Video Only, Inc., a home entertainment and audio equipment company headquartered in Seattle, Washington, faced repeated slurs and jokes about their race, national origin, and religion, including use of the “N-word,” by management, telling of racially offensive jokes, use of the epithet “beaner,” and a hog-tied doll with its face painted black.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-4-08.html , “Electronics Retailer ‘Video Only’ To Pay $630,000 For Harassment And Retaliation,” EEOC Press Release, 8/4/08.  In the lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that both employees were retaliated against after they reported the harassment.  Id.  In this regard, the EEOC asserted that the company confronted co-workers who supported the plaintiffs and hired a private investigator to gather information to discredit the harassment claims.  Id.  The alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and, according to the EEOC, the company settled the lawsuit this month, agreeing to pay $630,000 as well as implementing preventative measures.  Id.

Whether racial profiling occurs in Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio or elsewhere, it is intolerable in a civilized society and victims of racial profiling can consult an attorney and also make written complaints, documenting the occurrence and placing law enforcement and responsible employers on notice of racial harassment.  In addition, victims of racial profiling may contact the American Civil Liberties Union or visit the ACLU website at http://www.aclu.org to voice their complaints and seek information about their rights and what steps they can take to document and expose the misconduct.

In this regard, an August 6, 2008 ACLU press release about the ACLU’s “Report on Racial Profiling in Louisiana” discusses the results of a year-long study on racial profiling in Louisiana that looked at data from local law enforcement agencies and information gathered from victims of racial profiling in Louisiana.  See, ACLU Press Release, “ACLU Releases Report On Racial Profiling In Louisiana,” http://www.aclu.org , 8/6/08.  According to the ACLU’s Racial Justice Fellow, Liza Grote, the ACLU’s studies “show that in many cases these stories are true, and that people of color are not treated equally by law enforcement.”  Id.

The ACLU’s report tells victim stories and analyzes arrest and population data from law enforcement agencies in certain Louisiana parishes, concluding that people of color are arrested at a rate higher than their representation in the population.  Id.  “The most extreme example of racial profiling was found in the towns of Bunkie, where people of color are 3.8 times more likely to be arrested than white people, and Mansfield, where people of color are 2.9 times more likely to be arrested than whites.”  Id.

“Racial profiling is wrong and is ineffective policing,” said Marjorie Esman, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana.  Id.  The press release also quoted the ACLU’s King Downing, who said: “Unfortunately, the report’s data from some of Louisiana’s law enforcement agencies mirrors data from police departments across the country that have been found to commit blatant racial profiling.”  Id.

The report goes on to lay out specific steps law enforcement and community members may take to vigorously move toward ending racial profiling in Louisiana.  Id.  One way includes agreeing to collect racial data on all traffic stops that can be accomplished by the Louisiana legislature mandating all law enforcement agencies to collect racial data on all traffic stops regardless of whether the law enforcement agency has a written policy against racial profiling.  Id.  Citizens and racial profiling witnesses can also help end racial profiling discrimination and harassment by documenting and reporting incidents of racial injustice.

See, http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/36358prs20080806,html?s_src=RSS

Racial profiling by law enforcement and others is not limited exclusively to blacks and can, for example, impact people who are Muslim, Arab, Asian and Hispanic.  In February, 2008, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) released a challenge pertaining to racial profiling and illegal detentions of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian men, citing attorneys calling for officials to be held accountable for deprivation of constitutional rights as a result of round-ups that prompted a class action lawsuit filed in 2002.  See, CCR Release, Jen Nessel, http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/newsprint.cgi?file=/news2008/0214-16.htm , 2/14/08.  In addition, Arizona law enforcement has seen recent lawsuits pertaining to Hispanics alleging violations of their civil rights as a result of alleged racial profiling. 

Consequently, racial profiling victims can include not only African-American citizens but also people who are Hispanic, Muslim, Arab and Asian.  Victims of racial profiling may contact an attorney regardless of whether the alleged racial profiling occurred in Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio or elsewhere in the United States in order to talk about the incident and determine if the incident may give rise to a claim for damages in Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio or elsewhere.  Just as significant, an important step toward ending mistreatment of people based on color can, when possible, begin with documenting and reporting racial harassment to law enforcement and any other responsible employers, including, but not limited to, companies or businesses who participate in or ignore occurrences of consumer racial profiling in the marketplace.

According to a recent edition of the Houston Press, illegal immigrants are subject to pain and death at the hands of their “rescuers” if they do not pay up in full.  See, Vogel Chris,”Torture Squad,” Houston Press, Vol. 20, No. 32, August 7 - 13, 2008, p. 13.  While life is perceived as better in the United States, migrants must risk being tortured or killed by the people who get them to this country.  Id @ p. 14.  So-called people smugglers carry guns, change prices on a whim, extort money and have little or no sympathy for their human cargo.  Id.  Since there currently is no system whereby migrants can safely and flexibly enter the United States, human smugglers become increasingly important regardless of their behavior.  Id. As reported in the article, smugglers stash people throughout Houston in hotels, motels, trailer parks and private homes.  Id. 

In February, 2008, for example, the article states that five Mexican nationals and one Honduran pled guilty in federal court after ICE agents found them holding 44 illegal immigrants at a house in Houston and another 13 at a Houston business.  Id. @ 16. One human smuggler was sentenced in April after crashing his SUV and killing five of his illegal immigrant passengers.  Id.  In another case, guilty pleas were entered by two Mexican Nationals and one Brazilian for conspiracy to harbor and transport illegal immigrants, one of whom claimed he had been hit with a baseball bat.  Id. Some cases can even involve federal agents.  Id. @ 16.

Human smuggling and the torture of illegal immigrants has, in the past, gone unreported but that might be changing since the people entering illegal are human beings.  The fact that they are here illegally does not justify torture and people, including migrants, are aware of consequences for smugglers and can be more willing to report human smugglers, who they may not know, when humans are being brutally abused.

Whether race discrimination and national origin harassment occurs in San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, or Houston, employment discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is illegal and an attorney may be consulted by workplace discrimination victims to determine whether a discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the specific potential case.

On March 11, 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a press release from Dallas announcing the settlement of a race and national origin harassment lawsuit against Allied Aviation Services, Inc. on behalf of African-American and Hispanic workers who were allegedly the targets of racial slurs, graffiti, cartoons and hangman’s nooses at a facility in the Dallas and Fort Worth airport.  See, EEOC Press Release, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-11-08.html , 3/11/08.   In that case, the EEOC charged that African American and Hispanic employees were subjected to a racially hostile work environment consisting of verbal and other abuse by their co-workers on a daily basis, including racial graffiti, swastikas and the N-word.  Id.  The EEOC also alleged that there was a so-called “hit list” targeting blacks as well as references to the “back of the bus” and “going back to Africa.”  Id.  According to the EEOC, the settlement of the lawsuit “sends and important message to the aviation industry that racial graffiti and slurs are not appropriate in the workplace, whether in an office building or out on the tarmac.”  Id.

While Allied Aviation Services reported having about 250 employees at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport, it has, according to the press release, 3,000 employees throughout its entire organization.  Id.

Again, victims of employment discrimination in the United States, including employees in San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston or elsewhere, may contact an employment discrimination attorney and may also contact the EEOC since racial harassment and national origin harassment are prohibited in the workplace.

Racial profiling is illegal.  Victims of racial profiling may submit written complaints to the law enforcement department or company they believe engaged in racial profiling.  In addition, victims of racial profiling may consult an attorney to determine whether a civil lawsuit or other legal action is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of their potential cases.

In this regard, The Dallas Morning News reported recently that four customers of a bank filed a lawsuit against the bank alleging racial profiling in order to “obtain justice for the humiliation and degradation they experienced due to the rascist stereotyping of Wells Fargo and its employees.”  See, Trejo, Frank, “Customers At Wells Fargo Bank In Frisco Allege Racial Profiling,” The Dallas Morning News, http://www.dallasnews.com , 7/11/08; see also, Trejo, Frank, “Customers Held At Gunpoint At Frisco Bank File Racial Profiling Suit,” The Dallas Morning News, http://www.dallassnews.com , 7/10/08.  According to The Dallas Morning News articles, four bank customers, two of whom were black and two of whom were Indian, went to the bank to close on a vehicle loan when employees called police to report suspicious behavior.  Id.  The customers were allegedly detained at gunpoint until officers determined there had been no robbery attempt.  Id. Among the grounds listed for the suit are false imprisonment, defamation, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Id.

Harassment on the basis of national origin is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of national origin.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-nator.html , “Facts About National Origin Discrimination.”  An ethnic slur or other verbal or physical conduct because of an individual’s nationality constitutes harassment, if, according to the EEOC, they create an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, unreasonably interfere with work performance or negatively affect an individual’s employment opportunities.  Id.  As reported by the Equal Employment Opportunty Commission, employers have a responsibilty to maintain a workplace free from national origin harassment, and, in this regard, employers may be responsible for any on-the-job harassment by their agents and supervisory employees, regardless of whether the acts were authorized or specifically forbidden the employer.  Id.  In addition, there can be circumstances under which an employer might be responsible for the acts of non-employees who harass their workers at work.  Id.  To make a claim of nationality harassment, one can make a charge of national origin discrimination with the EEOC and consult a lawyer about whether a national origin discrimination lawsuit or nationality harassment lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the potential harassment case. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provides information about national origin discrimination at http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-nator.html .  In this regard, the EEOC states that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of national origin as well as race, color, religion and sex.  More specifically, the EEOC reports that it is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant because of the individual’s national origin.  According to the EEOC “Facts About National Origin Discrimination,” no one can be denied equal employment opportunity because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group, and equal employment opportunity cannot be denied because of marriage or association with persons of a national origin group; membership or association with specific ethnic promotion groups; attendance or participation in schools, churches, temples, or mosques generally associated with a national origin group; or surname associated with a national origin group.  For example, an ethnic slur or other verbal or physical conduct could violate Title VII.  Further, an employment rule requiring employees to speak only English might violate Title VII.  As stated by the EEOC, employers have a responsiblity to maintain a workplace free of national origin harassment.  If a person believes, he or she has been the victim of national origin harassment, a complaint can be made with the EEOC.  In addition, an attorney may be consulted to discuss whether a national origin discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the potential nationality harassment case.  Employees who report national origin harassment in the workplace may also be protected by federal law from retaliation by the employer, and, again, a complaint can be registered with the EEOC and an attorney may be consulted to investigate whether a national origin retaliation lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate.

Source | The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Whether an employee or job applicant’s ancestry is Mexican, Ukrainian, Filipino, Arab, American Indian, or any other nationality, he or she is entitled to the same employment opportunities as anyone else. EEOC enforces the federal prohibition against national origin discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which covers employers with fifteen (15) or more employees.