Total Articles: 9
One Prediction That Had Some Legs
Forecasting is an art not a science, and truth be known luck is probably the most single important factor if one gets it right, still I could not help but think back to one of my first posts of this year, 2011 --- the Year of the Non-minority? where I thought that we might see
Patient's preference for white aides does not trump health care employer's duty to its employees to abstain from race-based work assignments.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a nursing home’s policy of complying with patients’ wishes to be treated only by white health care workers can form the basis of a racially hostile work environment for non-white employees.
Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Scrapping Promotional Exam Violates Title VII.
On April 22, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the internal clash between Title VII’s disparate impact and disparate treatment provisions. Ricci v. DeStefano, U.S., No. 07-1428 (oral argument 4/22/09). The case is based upon the city of New Haven’s decision not to certify the results of two 2003 firefighter promotional exams - one for captain, and one for lieutenant – when 14 of the top 15 scores were earned by white candidates. The district court dismissed a lawsuit filed in 2004 on behalf of 17 white and one Hispanic firefighters; that decision was upheld by the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was accepted for argument by the Supreme Court, primarily to address the issue of whether the city’s decision violated Title VII and/or the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Manager Fired For Violating Nonfraternization Policy Loses Appeal.
A federal appellate court recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by an African-American manager who claimed that his discharge was racially motivated because he dated (and subsequently married) a white hourly employee. According to the court, the worker failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, and even if he could, there was no evidence that the company's explanation for his discharge was a pretext for unlawful bias.
Tenth Circuit Finds No Pretext In Hospital's Assertion That Disruptive Physician's Privileges Should Be Terminated.
Healthcare entities continue to monitor federal court decisions related to the relationship between hospitals and credentialed physicians to determine whether hospital bylaws are being viewed by the courts as contracts with the doctors. Recently, however, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals side-stepped the “contract” issue while addressing a race discrimination claim brought by a doctor against a hospital. Instead, it analyzed the case under the typical burden shifting framework generally applicable in federal discrimination cases. Under that analysis, the physician failed to show that race was a motivating factor in the hospital’s decision to terminate his privileges there, and his case was dismissed.
The EEOC's E-RACE Initiative.
In February, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched its "E-RACE" (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment) Initiative. The E-RACE Initiative is designed to improve the EEOC's efforts to free the workplace of race and color discrimination. The EEOC intends to identify issues, criteria and barriers that contribute to race and color discrimination, explore strategies to improve the administrative processing and litigation of race and color discrimination claims, and enhance public awareness of race and color discrimination in employment.
EEOC Compliance Manual Emphasizes Subtle Forms of Discrimination Based on Race or Color.
The EEOC recently issued a new Compliance Manual Section with guidance for analyzing race and color discrimination claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The guidance, which is 57 pages long, includes definitions of "race" and "color" as used under Title VII; a discussion of disparate treatment, disparate impact, and harassment based on race; information on what the Commission will look for in investigating race/color discrimination charges; and best practices recommendations for preventing race/color discrimination claims.
Supreme Court Rejects "Slap You in the Face" Standard for Evaluating Qualifications Evidence in Discrimination Cases.
In a significant employment related decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Circuit used an improperly vague standard in evaluating the evidence in a race discrimination case. Accordingly, the Court ordered the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider the evidence using a more precise standard. See Ash v. Tyson Foods Inc. (Feb. 21, 2006). The Court also held that the Eleventh Circuit was wrong when it held that a supervisor's use of the term "boy" in referring to the two African American employees who sued Tyson Foods was not evidence of discrimination because it was not modified by a racial classification.
"Derivative Bias" Claim Does Not Pass Muster (pdf).
The federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Indiana employers has dismissed a “derivative discrimination” claim brought by a white warehouse worker. According to the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, the worker failed to prove that the employer subjected him to any discrimination based on his race.
