Wal-Mart discrimination case will go to trial February 7, 2007
Posted by C.A.R.D in benefits, Card, CARD Sexism, Carl Tobias, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, corporate policy of discrimination, discrimination lawusit, female, females, Joseph Sellers, Lawsuit, sex bias, Sexism, sexism against women, sexism lawsuit, Supreme Court, Wal-Mart lawsuit, Wal-Mart sexism, Wal-Mart sexist, Women, work discrimination.comments closed
Appeals court expands class-action suit that could include 2 million women
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the biggest U.S. private employer, lost a bid to prevent 2 million current and former female workers from proceeding as a group with sex bias claims in the largest employment lawsuit in U.S. history.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Tuesday upheld a 2004 lower court ruling granting class-action status to a lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart of paying women less than men and giving them fewer promotions. That ruling expanded the suit, originally filed by six women, to include all women who worked at Wal-Mart stores from December 1998 to the present, excluding upper management and pharmacy workers. With the decision, women employed during that period at Delaware’s eight Wal-Mart stores are now included in the suit. The company employs 4,056 workers in the state.
The court’s 2-1 decision is a blow to Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, which is facing more than 200 federal lawsuits by employees. While the workers still have to prove their claims at a trial, the ruling provides leverage for a settlement. The workers are seeking billions in back pay and punitive damages, court-ordered changes in Wal-Mart’s practices and independent monitoring.
“Expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination,” the appeals court said. The potential number of women covered by the case, originally about 1.5 million, had grown to about 1.6 million by the time of the class certification decision in 2004, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers. The number of former and current women workers who could be part of the class is now closer to 2 million, said Joseph Sellers, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
Supreme Court lets stand IBM victory on pension discrimination January 17, 2007
Posted by C.A.R.D in Age Discrimination, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, IBM, Supreme Court.comments closed
The Supreme Court today refused to consider an appeal brought by a group of IBM employees who accused the company of age discrimination when it altered its pension plan. The lawsuit could have cost the company $1.4 billion.In the case, a former IBM employee named Kathi Cooper served as the lead plaintiff in a class-action suit brought on behalf of 250,000 current and former IBM workers. The suit argued that IBM’s “cash-balance” pension plan was discriminatory because it allowed younger workers to accrue benefits in the plan at a faster rate than older workers.
IBM switched to a cash balance plan in 1999. Such plans provide workers with individual accounts that can be cashed out when they leave the company and are intended to appeal to younger workers who are more likely to switch jobs.
The IBM case has been closely watched, as roughly 1,500 companies have adopted cash-balance plans. The company earlier agreed to settle the case for $1.4 billion if it lost in the courts.
But the 7th District Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, sided with IBM in August, ruling that the “terms of IBM’s plan are age-neutral.”
Supreme Court: Uppsala University Guilty of Anti-Swedish Discrimination January 11, 2007
Posted by C.A.R.D in affirmative action, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, Quotas, reverse racism, Supreme Court, university.comments closed
Late last month Uppsala University was found guilty of discrimination against Swedes by the Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen). Three years ago, the university refused to enroll Cecilia Lönn and Josefine Milander in its Law Faculty even though they had better grades than thirty other students with a foreign background.
In 2003, thirty of the available places for the law courses had been reserved for students with a foreign background. Cecilia Lönn and Josefine Milander, both with better grades than all of those thirty students who were allowed in, were refused by the university. The two young ladies sued the university. They won twice in lower courts. Now the Supreme Court, too, has ruled in their favor and ordered the university to pay them a compensation of SEK 75,000 (approximately €8,200). The court expenses they made, about SEK 41,000 (approximately $4,500), will be reimbursed by the state.
Neither the Supreme Court nor the two women question the principle of positive discrimination, as long as it is practised between candidates who are equally qualified. Not so, however, when somebody with a foreign background is favored even though the Swede had better grades, since this is not positive discrimination, but just plain discrimination. Hence the Supreme Court wanted to set a clear example of what cannot be considered to be positive discrimination and therefore is illegal.
‘Diversity’ Rules Continue Racism December 20, 2006
Posted by C.A.R.D in Black, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Discriminate, Discrimination, Diversity, Jim Crow, Racism, Racist, School, Supreme Court, White.comments closed
It has been 52 years since the Supreme Court delivered its landmark anti-segregation decision in Brown vs. Board of Education. It has been more than 43 years since Martin Luther King Jr. declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Today, in the year 2006, it is safe to say there is not a parent of a schoolchild alive who had anything to do with the injustices of pre-Brown segregation. And yet much of officialdom, particularly in the educational bureaucracies of our fair land, continues to be judge and sort children by the color of their skin. The very thought of it ought to disgust all Americans.
Bizarre as it seems, the struggle for true equality continues in the courts, but with a generational twist. In King’s day, officialdom made decisions about where black children could attend or not attend school. Today officialdom stands at schoolhouse doors to block those who are not black or of other designated minority groups. The only difference between then and now is that Bull Connor was more honest about his aims. Today’s segregationists write legal briefs and write rules within the state and federal education bureaucracies, in the name of “civil rights.” George Orwell could appreciate the irony.
Rejected Supreme Court candidates claim racial discrimination December 14, 2006
Posted by C.A.R.D in Anti-White, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, Lawsuit, Racism, Racist, Supreme Court, White.comments closed
[ Gov. Phil Bredesen]
Tennessee – Two white candidates claim that they were rejected for the fifth and final seat on the Supreme Court of the state because of their race. Earlier this year, Gov. Phil Bredesen scrapped the first panel of candidates given by the commission after the only minority candidate, Davidson County Chancellor Richard Dinkins, withdrew for family reasons. The commission was told by Gov. Phil Bredesen that he wanted the panel to include qualified minority candidates.
One black candidate was included in the second panel, Memphis Circuit Judge D’Army Bailey. Yet, it as well included J. Houston Gordon, an attorney and former state Democratic Party chairman, and George T. “Buck” Lewis, each of which were rejected from the panel previously.
John Hicks, Lewis’ attorney said: “There’s no real question that the reason Mr. Lewis and Mr. Gordon were rejected was because of race.” Charles W. Bone, an attorney for Gordon said: “It’s just as significant for (Bredesen) to say, ‘I’m not going to appoint these people because they’re white as it is for him to say I’m not going to appoint somebody because they’re black.”
Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle is hearing the case by the candidates. The case is hoped to be ruled on by Friday.
C.a.r.d {Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination} Link: Nashvillecitypaper.com
Supreme Court to Rule on Assigning Schools Based on Race of Student December 4, 2006
Posted by C.A.R.D in Black, Blacks, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, Race, Racism, racism and discrimination, Racist, Supreme Court, White, Whites.comments closed
WASHINGTON — Kathleen Brose is a Seattle parent whose daughter was denied a seat at the local high school in 2000 because she is white. Former teacher Pat Todd is in charge of deciding where students in Louisville, Ky., attend public school, using race as one of several criteria.
Todd and Brose are at the center of a school desegregation debate set for Monday morning before the U.S. Supreme Court that could affect what rules districts may use to keep schools integrated. Parents of white students in both districts are suing to overturn racially driven student assignment systems they say illegally force children to enroll in public schools they don’t want to attend simply because of skin color.
With fewer school systems under court-ordered desegregation, some have adopted looser rules that allow parents some freedom to choose schools as long as there’s enough room and racial balance is met. The justices’ ruling, expected this spring, will shape what local governments can do to ensure integration more than half a century after the watershed Brown v. Board of Education case.
“If the court rules (against both plans), it will be a reversal of historic proportions,” said Theodore Shaw, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Both sides are using the legacy of the Brown case to buttress their arguments.
Supporters of the Louisville and Seattle plans say the 1954 ruling was supposed to end racial isolation by outlawing the “separate but equal” standard. Opponents, including the Bush administration, say Brown sought to make sure no child is discriminated against because of race.
Brose said her daughter applied to attend the high school nearest to her home, not only because of its proximity, but because it had an orchestra program. Instead, the district assigned her to a high school twice as far away without an orchestra program or any of her middle school friends.
Pacific Legal Foundation Responds to Supreme Court Decision Not to Take Berkeley Scout Case October 20, 2006
Posted by C.A.R.D in Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discrimination, Supreme Court.comments closed
The United States Supreme Court today declined to hear PLF’s constitutional challenge to the City of Berkeley’s punishment and discrimination against the Berkeley Sea Scouts because of their affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America.
Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Harold Johnson, co-counsel for the skipper of the Berkeley Sea Scouts, issued the following statement: “We are disappointed that the Court declined to hear a challenge to the City of Berkeley’s policy of punishing the Sea Scouts because they are not ‘politically correct.’ But we are confident that, eventually, the Court will take a case addressing the underlying issues, because there are too many examples of government discrimination against Scouting and other belief-based organizations to ignore.”
“Moreover, Berkeley officials should know that if they don’t stop discriminating against Scouting, they risk losing federal funds,” said Johnson. The federal Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 (see 42 U.S.C. ss. 5309(e)(2)) prohibits state or local governments that receive federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from discriminating against Boy Scouts or affiliated organizations.
“Congress passed this provision — and the president signed it — to address discriminatory policies like Berkeley’s,” said Johnson.
Berkeley excludes the Berkeley Sea Scouts from a program of free berthing for nonprofits at the Berkeley Marina. The exclusion is because the Berkeley Sea Scouts refused to sign a statement that would have had the effect of severing their ties with the Boy Scouts of America.
Racism and Discrimination Alive and Well October 19, 2006
Posted by C.A.R.D in affirmative action, Blacks, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, ethnicity, minorities, Race, racism and discrimination, reverse racism, Supreme Court, Whites.comments closed
For a decade now, my Center for Equal Opportunity has documented the double standards used by colleges and universities in giving preference in admission to blacks and Hispanics while disfavoring better qualified Whites and Asians.
In July 2003, the Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action admissions program, which favored Blacks and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics. But three new CEO studies released this week show that preferences, for blacks especially, have gotten worse in subsequent years. And these preferences extend to law and medical school admissions as well.
In 2003, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions on Michigan’s admissions programs. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court ruled that the university’s undergraduate program, which awarded extra points on the basis of race or ethnicity, was unconstitutional. In Grutter v. Bollinger, which examined the law school’s admissions procedures, the Court upheld the school’s program, which it contended took race into account but did not mechanically award specific points for race or ethnicity.
Banish The Bling August 21, 2006
Posted by C.A.R.D in African-American, Black, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Hispanic, Supreme Court.comments closed
Have we taken our eyes off the prize? The civil rights movement continues, but the struggle today is not so much in the streets as in the home — and with our children. If systemic racism remains a reality, there is also a far more sinister obstacle facing African American young people today: a culture steeped in bitterness and nihilism, a culture that is a virtual blueprint for failure.
The emphasis on young people in today’s civil rights struggle is rooted in demographics. America’s black, Hispanic and immigrant population is far younger than its white population. Those young people of color live in the big cities and rely on big-city public schools.
With 50 percent of Hispanic children and nearly 70 percent of black children born to single women today these young people too often come from fractured families where there is little time for parenting. Their search for identity and a sense of direction is undermined by a twisted popular culture that focuses on the “bling-bling” of fast money associated with famous basketball players, rap artists, drug dealers and the idea that women are at their best when flaunting their sexuality and having babies.
Congress Not Immune From Discrimination Suits August 19, 2006
Posted by C.A.R.D in Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Congress, Discrimination, Supreme Court.comments closed
A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a motion to dismiss a job discrimination suit against Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., ruling that members of Congress are not automatically immune from such suits under the Constitution.But in a mixed decision that could lay the groundwork for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the judges found that Dayton could still assert immunity under the “speech or debate” clause by formally asserting that a staffer’s dismissal was based on the performance of protected legislative duties.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was closely watched on Capitol Hill because of the separation of powers and immunity issues it raises for all members of Congress in discrimination and civil rights suits.
For that reason, Dayton’s case was joined with a race and gender discrimination suit brought against Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas.
Brad Hanson, Dayton’s former state office manager, sued Dayton in May 2003, claiming he was fired after disclosing that he had a heart condition.
Freedom of Speech Based on Race: -First Amendment Affirmative Action July 21, 2006
Posted by C.A.R.D in affirmative action, Amendment, Asian, Bible, Bill of Rights, Black, Card, Catholics, Circuit Court, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, First, First amendment, First amendment affirmative action, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Harper, Hispanic, Homosexual, Jewish, Latino, Muslim, Race, Racism, Religion, Sandra Day O'Connor, sexual orientation, Speech, Supreme Court, White.comments closed
For forty years, the United States has lived with a variety of government programs applying preferential treatment based on race or gender or both. These programs have generally been limited to education and public contracting.
Recently, in a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision which may provide a foundation for applying preferential treatment to freedom of speech. If allowed to stand, the decision could authorize local governments to set varying limits to free expression, depending on the race, religion, or sexual orientation of the listener.
C.A.R.D 