http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/17 Articles discussing race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:11:12 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8572 Article: 8572 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Employers that prohibit or limit the hire of persons with felony convictions may be unknowingly in the cross hairs of the EEOC for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) on the theory that failing to hire felons has a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics. The EEOC is currently in the process of revising its regulations regarding felony convictions. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8494 Article: 8494 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Courts typically have dismissed discrimination claims under Title VII if those claims were made by an independent contractor, rather than by an “employee” of the company. However, 42 U.S.C. §1981 (“Section 1981”), which prohibits racial discrimination in the formation of contracts, states that “all persons” shall have the same right “to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens.” In a case of first impression for the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that court has followed prior decisions of three sister-appellate courts in holding that an independent contractor may sue for race discrimination under Section 1981. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8407 Article: 8407 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) When an individual claims to have been racially harassed by co-workers, he or she must show that the employer was negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment. An employer can avoid liability for co-worker harassment if it takes prompt and appropriate remedial action that is likely to prevent the harassment from recurring. Recently, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed specific actions taken by a company after a noose was found hanging in a workplace, and found those actions to have been sufficient to uphold summary judgment in the company’s favor. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8377 Article: 8377 Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 ruling, that the City of New Haven's decision to discard test results that were used to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that the City's race-based rejection of the test results cannot satisfy the "strong-basis-in-evidence standard," which the Court adopted to resolve conflicts between Title VII's disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions. According to the Court, "[f]ear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions." http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8363 Article: 8363 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) A central focus of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing is her decision in a controversial reverse discrimination case brought by white firefighters in Connecticut. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white firefighters, whereas Judge Sotomayor was part of a 3 judge panel which rejected that claim. Here’s what happened and why you should be concerned. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8303 Article: 8303 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) When a group of White firefighters came out on top in a promotional exam, a Connecticut Fire Department became worried about possible racial bias in the exam. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8287 Article: 8287 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On June 29, 2009, Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, issued the long-awaited decision in Ricci v. DeSteffano, a "reverse race discrimination" case arising out of the City of New Haven, Connecticut's Civil Service Board's ("CSB") decision not to use the results of promotional examinations. The Court held that CSB engaged in disparate treatment race discrimination against white firefighters when it decided not to certify test results showing a disparate impact on certain firefighters of color.1 In making its decision, the CSB considered evidence that the selection process may not have been job-related and consistent with business necessity and that an alternative employment practice having less of a disparate impact and serving its legitimate business needs could have been utilized. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8285 Article: 8285 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) When is it lawful under anti-discrimination laws for an employer to intentionally discriminate against members of one protected class, to avoid a disparate impact claim by individuals in another protected group? The U.S. Supreme Court addressed that question in Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009 DJDAR 9567 (June 29, 2009). The court's decision explains the interplay between two branches of anti-discrimination laws: disparate treatment and disparate impact. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8277 Article: 8277 Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009 WL 1835138 (June 29, 2009), a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court held that the city of New Haven, Connecticut unlawfully discriminated against top-scoring white and Hispanic firefighters by rejecting the results of a promotion-qualifying exam to avoid a possible claim from black candidates who had not tested as well. In so doing, the court ruled that "before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in fact to believe that it will be subject to disparate impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action." http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8252 Article: 8252 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Query: May an employer make a race-based employment decision when it discovers that one of its employment tests or policies has the unintended effect of creating an adverse impact on another racial classification?