Civil Rights Act of 2004: Real People, Real Stories
Donald Lagatree, California
EEOC v. Luce Howard
If you had to choose between taking a job and signing away your civil rights, which would it be? This was the choice that Donald Lagatree had to make. Because he chose his rights, Donald was out of a job. Donald thought it was unfair for his company to force him to sign an arbitration agreement in order to work for them. To Donald it was important to retain his civil rights - including the right to a jury trial - in the event that he faced employment discrimination. But the law firm of Luce Howard withdrew its offer to hire Donald as a legal secretary solely because he didn't feel comfortable signing a mandatory arbitration agreement. While arbitration is sometimes viewed as an efficient alternative to the legal system, it allows for minimal public accountability; limits the rights of claimants; and has structural biases against discrimination plaintiffs. In short, arbitration lacks the important protections of our traditional justice system. It is no wonder so many corporations want to force their employees to sign these agreements. If you had been discriminated at work would you want to be forced to adjudicate your claim through a process that didn't offer you the fullest legal protections? The EEOC agreed with Donald and they sued on his behalf. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, following two Supreme Court decisions that have chipped away at the rights of employees, Circuit City v. Adams and Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., ruled that employers are not prohibited from requiring employees to agree to mandatory arbitration of employment disputes. Don't corporations have enough power as it is? Is it really fair to allow them to circumvent the traditional legal system when employment discrimination is at issue?
Douglas King, Nebraska
King v. State
To many, this seemed like an easy case. For years, state troopers like Douglas King were working overtime and not getting paid for it. Failing to compensate hourly workers for overtime is a direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Mr. King and over 200 Nebraska state troopers brought suit under the FLSA for $6000,000 to compensate for 44,000 hours of overtime. The state offered the troopers compensatory time off ("comp" time) instead of overtime wages, but time off doesn't pay for your child's college tuition or their doctor bills. And it doesn't pay your mortgage or your car insurance either. But the court in the troopers' case had no choice. It was forced to follow the Supreme Court's decision in Alden v. Maine, which held that state employees cannot recover money damages (like back pay) for violations of the FLSA. State troopers risk their lives every day to ensure that Americans are safe and secure. Is it fair for states to be able to violate the law, but not pay the victims the money they are owed?
Harold Johnson, Illinois
EEOC v. Francis Parker School
Harold Johnson was 63 years old when he applied for a job teaching drama at Francis W. Parker School. While Harold's 17 years of teaching experience should have been an asset, instead it worked against him. After he applied for the job, school administrators told Harold that because of his experience, he qualified for a salary higher than they had budgeted. The school never asked Harold whether he would be willing to work for the budgeted amount. Instead, the school hired a much younger woman with almost no teaching experience for the position. Believing he had been wrongfully discriminated against because of his age, Harold contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who, after investigating his discrimination complaint, took the unusual step of filing a claim against the school on his behalf. But Harold lost his battle because of language in the Supreme Court's decision in Hazen Paper that suggested that under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), discrimination could not be proven by establishing an unjustified disparate impact on older workers. Thus, even though the school's policy of limiting its applicant pool by salary range had the impact of systematically shutting out older, more experienced teachers like Harold, the court found in favor of the school.
Juan Carlos Astudillo
Reinforced Earth Company v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board et. al
Juan Carlos Astudillo worked as a maintenance helper for Reinforced Earth. There, he cut and welded iron and repaired motors, and was required to climb scaffolds and ladders and lift heavy steel beams. In 1994, Juan Carlos was hit in the head, neck, and back by a steel beam, and was rendered unconscious at work. He sustained a concussion, a mild head injury, and as a result, over the next few months Juan Carlos experienced headaches, dizziness, loss of balance, and upper and lower back pain. He was subsequently terminated from his job and he filed for workers' compensation. In an outrageous move, the company that Juan Carlos had worked so hard for responded to his compensation claim by saying he wasn't entitled to the benefits because he was undocumented. Juan Carlos' case is just another example of a company benefiting from the hard work of an immigrant and then exploiting their undocumented status when the worker tries to exercise one of the few rights that workers have under the law. While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Juan Carlos was entitled to medical benefits, it also found that illegal immigration status might justify terminating benefits for temporary total disability. This case is a direct outgrowth of Hoffman Plastics. There the Court diminished the rights of immigrant workers by holding that undocumented workers are not entitled to post-discharge back pay remedies under the National Labor Relations Act. As a result, employers are now raising their worker's immigration status whenever an unfair labor practice is at issue, in an effort to try to expand the reach of Hoffman Plastics. Shouldn't we treat our nation's immigrant population with respect and dignity instead of hostility and intolerance?
Marketa Wills, Pennsylvania
Wills v. Brown University
Marketa Wills, like many others, struggled with her course in organic chemistry as an undergraduate at Brown University. Being a diligent student, she sought help from a chemistry professor. Upon Marketa's arrival, the professor closed the door to his office and requested Marketa join him in prayer, where he then asked God to open up Marketa's brain so that she "could be more receptive to him and to chemistry formulas and equations." Several minutes later the teacher picked Marketa up, put his arms around her waist and sat her on his lap. As he 'prayed' about Marketa's problems he put his hand under her shirt, rubbed her stomach, and touched her breast. And this touch was no accident. According to Marketa, the teacher repeated this prayer mixed with fondling two more times in the hour and forty-five minutes or so that she was with the professor. After the session was over the professor said to her, "Don't let the Devil confuse Marketa into thinking that anything that went on today was sexual." Though Marketa complained to proper school authorities about the incident, the school simply reprimanded the professor and placed him on probation – even though a memorandum outlining the school's sexual harassment policy listed suspension or dismissal as the official response to sex discrimination. Two months after the incident the professor was given a raise and retained by the university. In addition, this man was the only available organic professor – a course which all pre-med students like Marketa had to take in order to enter medical school. But because of the enormous burden of proof that student plaintiffs are forced to meet since Gebser, Marketa lost her case. Gebser requires that in order to be held liable for sexual harassment, a school must have "actual knowledge" of the harassment, and act with "deliberate indifference" to the student's complaint. This is a much higher standard than employers have to demonstrate under Title VII. It is baffling that the Supreme Court employs a higher standard of proof for students than for workers. The pressures of a student on the medical school track are enormous. Is it fair to allow students such limited recourse in the face of sexual harassment from a trusted authority?
South Camden Citizens in Action, New Jersey
South Camden Citizens v. New Jersey
Imagine living in a neighborhood with "two Superfund sites, several contaminated and abandoned industrial sites, many currently operating facilities, including chemical companies, waste facilities, food processing companies, automotive shops, and a petroleum coke transfer station." Imagine further that the State had "granted permits for the operation of a regional sewage treatment plant, a trash-to-steam incinerator and a co-generation power plant in the neighborhood." And still, imagine that the State had approved the location of a cement plant that would process granulated blast furnace slag for use in making cement. If you were a resident of South Camden, New Jersey, this would not be imaginary. It would be real. This 90% minority community had had enough when its residents sued the State of New Jersey under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for the unjustified discriminatory effect of the State's decisions to approve the location of the Saint Lawrence Cement Plant in their community. The trial court initially agreed with the residents and on April 19, 2001, it enjoined the operation of the cement plant. However, only a few days later, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Alexander v. Sandoval that individuals did not have the right to bring an action in court challenging practices with an unjustified discriminatory effect – they could only come to court if they planned to prove intentional discrimination. As a result of the Sandoval decision, the injunction against the cement plant was lifted, the plant began operating, and the South Camden residents are left to prove that the State approved the location of the Cement plant in their community with the intent to discriminate against them on the basis of race or national origin. That is an unduly and unnecessarily high bar to erect to challenge practices such as these.
Judy Jones, Washington, DC
Jones v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Judy Jones started working at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in 1974. She drove buses and subway trains. In 1984, she was promoted to a supervisory position, but she found that despite getting very good job evaluations, her career hit a brick wall. She could not move up any higher. Judy thought that she was being discriminated against because of her age and she complained. After she filed a lawsuit, she was fired on trumped up charges. After being out of work for over three years, the jury found that Judy had been retaliated against for complaining about age discrimination. They awarded her over $200,000 in damages and she got her job back. But then the Supreme Court held in Kimel v. Florida State University that individuals have no right to sue state employers for money damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In light of that decision, the Transit Authority was able to argue that it was immune from suit. Thus, Judy never recovered the $200,000 that she had been awarded for the discrimination she experienced. Judy still works at Metro, getting to work by 4:30 a.m. every morning to keep things running on time. It is tragic that she had to endure this discrimination and never get any compensation for the injury she experienced.
Roderick Jackson, Alabama
Jackson v. Birmingham
Roderick Jackson thought he was doing the right thing. As a coach for the girl's basketball team at Ensley High School, Roderick felt that his players were not being treated the same as the male players. He believed that the girls were not given the same funding and that they didn't have the same access to sports facilities and equipment as their male classmates. Upset by this unfairness, Roderick complained to his supervisors. But instead of getting the situation rectified, the response he got was negative work evaluations. Then, he was relieved of his coaching duties. Unwilling to accept either the unfair treatment of his players or the backlash he received for complaining about it, Roderick sued the Birmingham Board of Education for their retaliation against him. The federal appellate court ruled that he did not have a right to sue under Title IX, basing its decision largely on a 2001 Supreme Court case, Alexander v. Sandoval, which held that there is no private right of action to sue under the disparate impact regulations of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Mr. Jackson is currently appealing this decision to the Supreme Court. Roderick stood up for something he believed was unjust – and his employer retaliated against him. If this situation is not fixed, will others have the courage to stand up for your sister, your daughter, or your friend?
Great Oaks Center Residents, Maryland
Wade v. Coughlin
Residents of the Great Oaks Center, a Maryland institution for individuals with developmental disabilities, sued the state alleging that they had been subject to abuse, neglect, unnecessary physical restraints, denied medical care and services to prevent their deterioration. They sought to stop new admissions to Great Oaks Center and to have current residents transferred to appropriate community living arrangements. Four years after the suit was filed, the state closed Great Oaks and within three years all but two of the residents were transferred to community placements. Given that the lion's share of the relief sought by the plaintiffs had been achieved, the parties agreed to dismiss the case. The residents then sought reimbursement for their attorney's work, which amounted to over $1 million. Although the courts agreed that the lawsuit had contributed substantially to the state's actions, because of the Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon, limiting the recovery of attorneys' fees to instances where there was actually a judgment by a court or court approval of a settlement agreement, the plaintiffs could not recover any fees.
