Amnesty International USA, a human rights organization, offers information about law enforcement racial profiling in its website at www.amnestyusa.org .  According to Amnesty International USA, racial profiling occurs when race is used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in non-suspect specific investigations.  In this regard, discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled.  Amnesty International USA further reports that racial profiling makes us less safe, inhibits law enforcement efforts and undermines national unity, providing for the public important information pertaining to racial profiling.  In addition, Amnesty International USA invites victims to share their stories and thoughts in order to join the organization in speaking out about serious human rights violations like racial profiling.  As stated by the organization, 26 states have no law explicitly prohibiting racial profiling and 46 states do not ban racial profiling beased on religion or religious appearance.  To help raise awareness about racial profiling and learn more about this important issue, one can visit the Amnesty International USA website.

In a March 3, 2010 posting at its “Blog of Rights,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced that the Human Rights Fund (HRF) has released a report profiling how groups like the ACLU have used international human rights standards and strategies to improve people’s lives in the United States.  According to the posting, the report discusses how the ACLU Human Rights Program worked with the Border Network for Human Rights (BNHR) to make the U.N. Human Rights Committee aware of the problems of racial profiling and harassment of people who live in the Texas-Mexico border region and the overall militarization of the border.  As stated in the blog, residents of that region were the targets of Operation Linebacker, a federally financed law enforcement program meant to target violent crime and drug trafficking at the border.  The ACLU contends that instead of arresting drug runners, the initiative ended up ethnically profiling brown-skinned people.  As a result of the ACLU and BHNR’s advocacy to the U.N., the ACLU reports that the drumbeat of local coverage put pressure on the mayor and legislators in Austin, the state capital, to rethink support for the policing initiative, which was later de-funded.

More information about the ACLU and this report is available at www.aclu.org .

In a press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/rlease/3-18-10b.cfm , the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that a federal district judge in Madison, Wisconsin entered a consent decree resolving an employment discrimination lawsuit against an egg processing company charged with unlawfully firing a production employee because of her epilepsy despite her ability to perform the essential functions of her job.  According to the March 18, 2010 press release, the company will pay $50,000 and provide other remedial relief.  EEOC trial lawyers charged in the lawsuit that the company violated the American’s With Disabilities Act (ADA) when it fired the employee because of epilepsy.

In a press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-17-10.cfm , the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that Administaff, Inc., a nationwide company which provides full service human resources to small and medium-size businesses, will pay $115,000 and furnish substantial remedial relief to settle a religion harassment lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys in Maryland.  According to the March 17, 2010 press release, EEOC attorneys charged that the Kingwood, Texas company and Conn-X, LLC violated federal law by engaging in religious discrimination against employees at Conn-X’s Engelwood, Maryland office.  As stated in the press release, EEOC attorneys claimed in the harassment case that two brothers were called “dirty Jew,” “dumb Jew,” and other anti-Semitic slurs by managers and coworkers because of their religion, Judaism.  The harassment allegedly included the defacing of one brother’s vehicle with a swastika symbol.   In addition, the EEOC said the same brother was forced into a trash bin for the amusement of managers who observed them on a work surveillance camera and called it “throw the Jew in the dumpster.”  The EEOC’s lawsuit against Conn-X, LLC, a Florida-based cable service provider, remains unresolved, the EEOC said. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious harassment.  EEOC attorneys filed the harassment lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace religious harassment.  Religious discrimination charge filings nationwide with the EEOC have increased substantially over the years.  In Fiscal Year 2009, the EEOC received a record high level of 3,386 religious discrimination charges - nearly double the number of religious discrimination charges since Fiscal Year 1992.

Whether anti-Semitic Judaism religious harassment occurs at workplaces in Conroe, Kingwood, Houston or elsewhere, victims of employment related religious bias may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential religious discrimination claim.

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.