Corporations Sued for Racial
Discrimination
This
website presents a list and summary of recent allegations of racial
discrimination charged in lawsuits against major corporations operating
in the United States.The status of each case is reported. The status of
any individual lawsuit may change. Readers are encouraged to
investigate any of these cases independently for further information.
FAIR
USE NOTICE
This website
may contain
copyrighted material the use of which has not specifically been
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in an effort to advance the understanding of educational,
political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific,and social justice issues.
This constitutes a"fair use" of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for nonprofit educational and research purposes.
For more information on fair use, please go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own which go beyond "fair
use," we suggest that you obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
Abercrombie &
Fitch
On June 16,
2003, a coalition of four organizations, including the national law
firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund ("MALDEF"), the Asian
Pacific American Legal Center ("APALC") and the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc., filed an employment discrimination class action
lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch Company. The named plaintiffs
allege that Abercrombie discriminates against people of color,
including Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans, in the
hiring, job assignment, compensation, termination and other terms and
conditions of employment.
Specific Allegations:
- Abercrombie
recruits, hires, and maintains a disproportionately white workforce of
salespeople (called Brand Representatives).
- Abercrombie
systematically discourages applications from minority applicants and
refuses to hire qualified minority applicants as Brand Representatives
to work on the floors.
- Abercrombie
implements its employment policies and practices in part through a
detailed and rigorous “Appearance Policy,” which requires that all
Brand Representatives must exhibit the “A&F Look”, a
virtually all-white image.
- Abercrombie
uses visual media to reinforce to managers responsible for recruitment,
assignment, compensation and termination of Brand Representatives the
importance of adhering to the "A&F Look" in employment decisions
via:
- prominent
displays in each store of large photographs of models – almost all
of whom are white;
- the A&F
Quarterly, a magazine/catalog featuring almost exclusively white models;
- careful
scrutiny and monitoring of its stores by regional and district managers
and corporate representatives, who have directed
that
minority Brand Representatives be fired, moved to the stock room or
overnight shift, or have their hours “zeroed out,” the equivalent of
termination;
- scrutiny and
enforced compliance with the “A&F Look” by requiring all stores to
submit a picture of their Brand Representatives. Corporate officials
then select roughly 15 stores’ pictures as exemplary models and
distribute these photos to all stores nationwide. The Brand
Representatives in these pictures are almost invariably white.
http://www.afjustice.com
Adam’s Mark
The Adam’s
Mark hotel chain
settled race discrimination lawsuits brought by the DOJ, Florida, and
some African Americans who attended last year’s Black College Reunion.
The agreements include $5.9 million payouts, increased training for
staff and regular updates to the DOJ. Adam’s Mark will also become one
of the event’s first corporate sponsors, kicking in $112,000 a year for
three years.
Although, Adam's Mark initially agreed to an
NAACP's $ 8 million settlement, the trial judge refused to approve the
settlement on procedural grounds. That decision is on appeal and Adam's
Mark has refused to support the appeal, or to otherwise settle the
guests' and the State the State of Florida's case.
http://www.naacp.org/work/legal/adamsmark.shtml
Allstate Insurance Co. (April 28, 2004)
Supreme
Court Allows Discrimination Suit Over Allstate's Use of Credit Scoring
The U.S. Supreme Court denied
Allstate's bid to end a suit by Texas and Florida policyholders who
claim that the use of credit scoring unfairly discriminates against
minorities by raising their rates and violates the U.S. Fair Housing
Act.
The class action law suit,
Jose C.
DeHoyos, et al. v. Allstate Corporation, et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Texas, in
November, 2001. The suit,
alleges that Allstate raised plaintiffs' auto insurance premiums or
assigned them to a higher-cost subsidiary based on race, due to
Allstate's use of geographical redlining.
The plaintiffs' suit argues that the use of credit scoring based upon
the location of the policyholders' residence is
intentional discrimination that results in a "disparate impact" against
minority policyholders. The case alleges that such credit scoring
criteria constitute racial
discrimination in violation of the U.S. Fair Housing Act.
In 2002 a federal trial judge allowed the suit to proceed. The court
rejected Allstate's argument.
n September, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
in New Orleans affirmed the decision to deny Allstate's motion to
dismiss.
With this latest Supreme Court affirmation, the case now proceeds to
trial on its merits.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2004/04/28/41541.htm
American
Eagle
What Some
Call Racist at
American Eagle, Others Say Was in Jest, Scott McCartney,
The Wall Street Journal, April
20, 1999
Amtrak
Amtrak had
barely settled
with a group of black engineers on March 3, when lawyers in another
class action suit announced they had widened the scope of their case
against the railroad. The March 3 settlement, which includes a $16
million payment to the plaintiffs, covered engineers in the northeast.
The expanded suit now covers all African American employees
Apple Computers
Apple Computer has been slapped with a $40 million racial
discrimination lawsuit charging that the company unfairly sacked an
African-American employee. Described by the plaintiff's attorney as
"one the largest racial
discrimination cases in U.S. history," the suit alleges the former
employee was denied promotions and standard perks, isolated from
co-workers and then fired for a trivial offense.
Budget
Rent-A-Car
One of the nation’s largest
auto rental firms told a Michigan court its liabilities could reach
$350 million in a class action suit charging racial discrimination
against customers. Budget’s claim enabled the company to move the trial
from district court, where it was being heard by an African American
judge, to federal court.
Coca
Cola (c. 2001)
The law firm of Mehri
& Skalet has brought two landmark race discrimination lawsuits. One
led in 1997 to a $176 million settlement with Texaco, now a part of
Chevron Texaco (NYSE:CVX - News). The other ended in 2001 with
Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE:KO - News) settling for $192 million.
"Coca-Cola
continued to move to deflect criticism of its treatment of
African-American employees. CEO Douglas Daft announced in mid-March
that executive pay would be linked to diversity goals, and a week later
named two black executives to senior positions. Juan D. Johnson, 42, of
Baton Rouge, will become director of diversity. Coretha Rushing 43, was
promoted to head of human resources. On March 31, plaintiffs made a
settlement offer. Some major shareholders are pressing Coke to resolve
its race problem."
Eddie Bauer
Three Blacks Win
$1 Million in Bauer Store Incident, The
New York Times, Oct. 10, 1997
Delta
Funding vs. FTC, HUD, DOJ
Subprime lender Delta
Funding Corp. is paying $12.25 million and changing its ways to
forestall a pummeling from several government bodies. The FTC, the DOJ,
and HUD all attacked the company for deceptive and illegal lending
practices in low-income areas. The settlement was wrapped into an
earlier deal with the New York State Banking Department
Denny’s
Grand Slam Breakfast?,
Guillermo, the Progressive
Federal
Reserve Bank - Chicago
Chicago FED may face $100 million
in claims
On March 28, a U.S. District
Court judge in Chicago gave class action status to a lawsuit by 14
current and former employees of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
The plaintiff class established by the judge includes African Americans
employed as far back as 1964.
Ford Motor
Company (Jan. 25, 1997)
Ford to pay
$4 million, hire more
women and minorities
Ford Motor Co. agreed to pay
$3.8 million to women and minorities to settle discrimination charges
with the Department of Labor. The automaker also agreed to hire women
and minorities.
The New York Times, January 25,
1997.p .
220
In 1941, the federal Fair
Employment Practices Commission was established to hear complaints of
racial discrimination in war related industries.
Georgia Pacific (April 3, 2001)
Class of African-American Workers
Subjected to Racial Slurs, Jokes,
Graffiti
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today
announced a $200,000 settlement of a racial harassment lawsuit against
Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, a leading global manufacturer and distributor of paper and
building products, on behalf
of four African-American employees. The workers were subjected to a
racially hostile work
environment, which included severe and repeated acts of racial
harassment, racial slurs, jokes, comments, and grafitti, by a white
supervisor at the company's facility in Butner, N.C. Additionally, one
employee was
fired after complaining about the harassment.
Johnson and
Johnson (June 16, 2004)
Charge
Filed Against Johnson &
Johnson
for Using Discriminatory Credit Checks to Allegedly Deny African
American Applicants Jobs (BUSINESS WIRE)
On June
16, 2004, Brenda
Matthews filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against Johnson &
Johnson with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") for
violating Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing
to hire her and other minority job seekers on account of race.
Ms. Matthews
alleges that Johnson
&
Johnson rescinded a job offer as a patent specialist based
solely on her credit score. Personnel
experts,
however, say that credit scores bear no relation to job performance.
Matthews'
attorney, Adam
T. Klein, said, "Johnson &
Johnson's use of credit checks is racial discrimination. Federal civil
rights laws prohibit employers from using credit scores and other
selection criteria without any relationship to job performance
that penalize minority job applicants" (disproportionately -Ed).
"That is what happened to Brenda
Matthews."
Minorities
often have lower credit scores because of more limited
opportunities to obtain credit. Attorney Bill Lann Lee, former
Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights at the U. S. Department of Justice explained, "The use of credit
checks to screen job applicants is a growing phenomenon among
employers. That is unfortunate. Not only are credit scores private
information unrelated to job performance, the practice perpetuates
prior discrimination in our society against minority families."
"African
Americans traditionally
have been excluded from credit
opportunities that provide positive credit scores," according to Mr.
Lee. "Although they have a higher savings rate than whites, blacks have
been subject to historic discrimination in the credit market."
Microsoft
(c. 1/01)
Texaco
(c. 1997)
Racism at Texaco, The New York
Times, Nov. 6, 1996
"Senior executives were
taped deriding minority employees in racist terms – and plotting to
destroy documents subpoenaed in a Federal discrimination case. The
excerpts (of the tapes) come from a meeting held in August 1994 during
which three senior executives discussed a class-action lawsuit filed by
black employees who charged that Texaco had discriminated against them
and created a hostile work environment. The Federal Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission essentially validated the suit, ruling that
there was reason to believe Texaco guilty of company-wide racial bias."
The
law firm of Mehri & Skalet has brought two landmark race
discrimination lawsuits. One led in 1997 to a $176 million settlement
with Texaco, now a part of Chevron Texaco. The other ended in 2001 with
Coca-Cola Co. settling for $192 million.
U.S.
Department of Agriculture (January 21, 2003)
Racial Discrimination by
USDA Threatens African American Farmers
The
USDA's record of racial discrimination is well documented. In 1997, the
USDA Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT) revealed decades of racial
discrimination that had put thousands of African-American farmers out
of business. By denying or delaying loans essential to financing their
crops, and by withholding other federal farm support on a widespread
basis, USDA employees forced African American farmers to lose their
land, their livelihoods, and their communities.
According the CRAT
report, "... in several states it took three
times as long on average to process African-American loan applications
as it did non-minority applications." "In 1994, 94% of all county
committees [that grant these loans] had no female or minority
representation." That pattern of non-representation continues today.
In 1982, the U.S. Civil
Rights Commission had warned, "unless government policies of neglect
and discrimination are changed, there may be no black farmers by the
year 2000."
In
1999, a class action racial
discrimination suit (Pigford vs.
Glickman) was settled with an
agreement to provide financial restitution. To date, more than $630
million has been paid out to farmers and former farmers who could
document that they were unfairly denied loans.
However, three years
later, the USDA's delays and rejection of thousands of applications
points to a continued pattern of discrimination in the grant approval
process.
In a December 15, 2002,
article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, ("Has
USDA settlement changed anything?") cited
numerous cases of on
going discrimination. One case involved a USDA
employee, Arthur Hall, who greeted a new African-American secretary
with a noose in his office. The USDA's general counsel for civil
rights, Arlean Leland, investigated the incident and dismissed
this act
as nothing more than "very poor judgment". She praised Hall as a
"committed federal public servant." The message to USDA employees from
her decision is that discrimination may continue as usual.
Since
the 1999 suit, only four of the USDA employees accused of
discrimination have been dismissed. As
Congresswoman Eva Clayton in the
House Agriculture Committee points out, "If any corporation paid out
[even] $10 million for the behavior of their employee...they would be
out of there...No one would have tolerated that."
U.S.
Marshall’s Service
Whistle-Blowing Marshall
Tells of Long Harassment, Selwyn Rabb, The New York Times, October 5, 1997
