A Houston nightclub’s Corporate Vice-President made explicit racist statements and forced out African-American staff, according to a race discrimination lawsuit filed in a Houston federal court by attorneys for the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  Filed in Houston on June 30, 2011, the EEOC’s lawsuit charges that, beginning at least in September 2007, the nightclub’s management prevented African-American waitresses from working their scheduled shifts when a company official visited the club from corporate headquarters near Dallas, because, as reported in the EEOC’s Press Release, local Houston managers told one African-American waitress that a vice president did not like African-American waitresses and dancers in his club.  The EEOC further claims that this vice president called at least one black waitress the N-word.  In addition, the EEOC claims that black waitresses working at the club insisted on speaking with the vice president to discuss their complaints of race discrimination.  The meeting, however, failed to change the working conditions, which had become intolerable for African-American females who were repeatedly prevented from working their scheduled shifts because of their race.  The EEOC contends that the women were forced to quit because of the racism. 

Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace racism.  EEOC attorneys filed the Houston race discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.  An EEOC attorney in Houston said, “This lawsuit will send a message to employers that the EEOC will vigorously enforce federal law by prosecuting companies whose staffing decisions are unapologetically motivated by unlawful racial preference.”

Whether unlawful workplace race discrimination occurs in Dallas, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected employment discrimination based upon race or racial preferences may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if a charge of racial discrimination is appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential racial discrimination lawsuit.

Source:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-30-11a.cfm

Race discrimination, including racial harassment in the workplace, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  In its role as an agency enforcing anti-discrimination laws, the EEOC may investigate charges of workplace discrimination and file suit against companies which violate workplace civil rights laws.  On June 22, 2011, the EEOC announced in a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-22-11.cfm that it filed suit against a freight trucking company for allegedly subjecting a class of African-American employees to a racially hostile work environment.  According to the EEOC, a truck driver and other African-American employees were repeatedly subjected to unwelcome derogatory racial comments and slurs by trucking company employees and managers, beginning as early as May 2007.  These racial comments and slurs included use of the terms “boy” and “monkey,” as well as the N-word.  Further, the EEOC contends that a noose was involved in the harassment.  The EEOC said that even though management and a co-owner were informed of the harassment, the racial harassment continued. 

An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release said “Cases like this remind us that, sadly, in the 21st Century, racial harassment still exists in workplaces across America.”

An investigation by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) revealed that employees of a roofing company were frequently subjected to racial epithets, racial jokes and hostile treatment by other company employees, according to an EEOC June 7, 2011 Press Release posted by the EEOC at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-7-11b.cfm .  The EEOC said the harassment was largely perpetrated by supervisors working at the northwest Minnesota commercial, industrial and residential roofing company, adding that, despite complaints to senior company management, the workplace misconduct did not stop. 

In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including racial harassment and retaliation for reporting racial harassment.  Following an investigation of the discrimination charge, the EEOC determined that there was reasonable cause to believe the roofing company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In addition, the EEOC found that the roofing company retaliated against the employee who brought the initial discrimination complaint by firing him after he reported the unlawful mistreatment.

As a result of the charge and the EEOC investigation, the roofing company agreed to pay $71,500 to seven black, Hispanic and American Indian employees to settle the racial harassment and retaliation charges.  In addition, the EEOC said the roofing company will provide other relief, including ant-discrimination training to employees and additional training to all supervsiors, managers and owners.

Whether unlawful workplace harassment and retaliation based on race or national origin occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to a racially hostile work environment may contact the EEOC or an attorney to determine if an employment discrimination charge or lawsuit is appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential harassment claim.  More information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov .

In Fiscal Year 2010, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 33,890 charges alleging race-based discrimination, accounting for 36 percent of the federal agency’s private sector caseload.  In this regard, racial discrimination in employment practices violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is an agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit employment-related racial discrimination.  Within this role, the EEOC may bring suit against companies on behalf of employees subjected to racial discrimination and retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination.  For example, the EEOC posted at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-3-11.cfm a Press Release announcing that a transportation management company agreed to settle for $60,000 a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys.  According to the Press Release, EEOC attorneys filed the employment discrimination lawsuit and charged the company with violating federal law by subjecting a black employee to racial discrimination.  In addition to seeking monetary relief, the EEOC can obtain other forms of relief, including injunctive relief to prevent and eliminate further harassment and retaliation.  More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether racial slurs and comments occur in workplaces in Beaumont, Dallas, Houston or elsewhere, employees forced to experience racial harassment at work may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine whether a racial harassment lawsuit is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

Employment related race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit racial discrimination in the workplace.  In this role, the EEOC can litigate cases against companies charged with unlawful discrimination.  For example, an EEOC Press Release dated April 22, 2011 discusses a Memphis, Tennessee discrimination lawsuit in which a sheet metal company located in Memphis was sued by EEOC attorneys and then agreed to pay former African-American employees $160,000 to resolve the racial harassment lawsuit.  According to the Press Release, EEOC attorneys charged in the lawsuit that a white supervisor and other employees subjected African-American employees to racially offensive comments, including regular use of racial slurs and displaying of racial graffiti in common areas and on company equipment.  An attorney in the EEOC’s Memphis Office was quoted as saying “Employees should not have to endure a racially hostile work environment as it is a violation of federal law.” 

Whether workplace race discrimination creates a racially hostile work environment in Memphis or elsehwere, employees subjected to racial slurs and racial gaffiti at work can contact the EEOC and an attorney.  For more information about the EEOC, see www.eeoc.gov .

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-22-11.cfm

An automobile dealership accused of racial harassment agreed to settle a federal lawsuit, according to an EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-20-11c.cfm posted on April 20, 2011.  In its Press Release, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported that its lawsuit charged a general manager routinely used derogatory terms to refer to blacks, customers and employees, including use of the N-word, and that the general manager utilized a compensation system which disadvantaged black salespeople with regard to sales opportunities and commissions.  Racial discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination.

Whether racial harassment in the workplace occurs in auto dealerships or elsewhere, employees subjected to race discrimination and slurs may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a charge of employment discrimination is appropriate.

In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-1-11.cfm , the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that federal judge in Tennessee affirmed a million-dollar judgment awarded against Michigan based company in a race and sex harassment lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys.  The EEOC stated that its lawsuit charged the company with violating federal law when it tolerated harassment of a black, female employee by a white male co-worker at a plant in LaVergne, Tennessee.  According to the EEOC, the workplace abuse lasted for two months until the co-worker physically assaulted the employee and inflicted serious permanent injuries.  During the four day trial, the trial court heard evidence that the victim reported escalating offensive verbal conduct and gestures, that four levels of the company’s management were aware of the escalating harassment and that the company failed to take effective steps to stop the harassment.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the EEOC Press Release said “This woman was victimized by serious, ongoing abuse, and was severely and permanently damaged as a result,” adding as follows: “A sizeable amount of damages was called for, and we are pleased that the judge agreed.”

Such alleged workplace misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is a federal agency charged with enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  More information about the EEOC is available to the public at www.eeoc.gov .

In a posting at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-15-10a.cfm , the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced on October 15, 2010 that an Austin, Texas packaging company agreed to settle a racial harassment, sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys on behalf of company employees who alleged they had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment, sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting workplace discrimination.  According to the EEOC, the workplace harassment included black employees being routinely subjected to discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, insults and racially offensive comments and jokes.  In addition, the EEOC also charged that a female manager harassed male employees with unwelcome sexual comments and unsolicited physical contact of a sexual nature.  A senior trial attorney with the EEOC’s San Antonio office was quoted in the EEOC Press Release, saying, in part, that the law requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent and correct racial and sexual harassment. 

Whether workplace racial or sexual harassment occurs in Austin, San Antonio or elsewhere, employees experiencing employment discrimination of a racial or sexual nature may contact the EEOC or an attorney to discuss making a formal charge of discrimination.  In this regard, the EEOC offers information to the public on its webite at www.eeoc.gov concerning employee rights and what an employee can do if they experience race, sex and retaliation discrimination on the job.

In a news release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-24-10.cfm , the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced that a Missouri construction company has settled a race harassment lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys.  According to the May 24, 2010 news release, EEOC attorneys charged in the employment discrimination lawsuit that the company violated federal law by racially harassing three African American construction workers and then taking reprisals against them when one complained.  More specifically, EEOC attorneys asserted that the three black construction workers were subjected to unlawful racial harassment which included the use of racially charged comments and the display of a noose. 

Racial harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  In this regard, EEOC attorneys filed the discrimination lawsuit after the agency first attempted to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.  Further information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov .

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

In May 2010 , the United States Department of Justice (”DOJ”) issued three news releases describing criminal proceedings DOJ attorneys charge were motivated by race.  A May 12th news release posted by the DOJ at http://www.justice.gov states that a 23-year-old man has been indicted by a federal grand jury for participating in a civil rights conspiracy in connection with an October 2008 cross-burning near the home of an interracial racial couple in Athens, Louisiana.  In that case, a co-conspirator was convicted this past January for conspiring to burn a cross, using fire to commit a federal felony and obstruction of justice charges stemming from this same cross-burning.  A May 13th DOJ news release states that a federal grand jury in the District of Massachusetts has charged two men in a three-count superseding indictment in relation to the arson of a church.  According to that news release, the superseding indictment alleges that in the early morning of November 5, 2008, within hours of Barack Obama being elected President of the United States, the two men agreed to burn and succeeded in burning the Macedonia Church of God in Christ, a predominately African American church.  In a May 17th DOJ news release, DOJ attorneys announced that a white supremacist pleaded guilty to using the Postal Service to send a threatening communication to the president of the Lima, Ohio chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.  As stated in the news release, the white supremacist admits mailing a hangman’s noose in order to convey a threat to injure the victim because the victim advocated publicly for better police services for African Americans in Lima, Ohio.  A Civil Rights Division attorney quoted in the news release stated, in part, that “A noose is an unmistakable symbol of hate in our nation, and it was used in this case to intimidate an individual exercising his right to speak out and advocate on behalf of others.”

With respect to the indictments, the DOJ cautioned in the news releases that details in an indictment are allegations and defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  Further information about the DOJ and the laws it enforces is available in the DOJ’s website at www.doj.gov .