The Employment Discrimination Project - The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - News Feed

Lawyers' Committee's Audrey Wiggins Quoted in 'More Employers Running Credit Checks on Applicants'

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0700

A July 13th article by Jackie Jones published on Black America Web dealt with the substance of the Lawyers' Committee's Access Campaign, which is intended to combat the missuse of background and credit checks in the workplace.

As Ms. Jones noted, "running credit checks on people who are already struggling financially and/or are out of work can make it harder for the unemployed, especially African-Americans, to regain their footing in the current economy."

Employment Discirimination Project Director Audrey Wiggins was quoted as stating that some employers use the credit checks to say, "if you’re not taking care of your business, you’re not going to take care of ours.”

The piece directed readers to the Lawyers' Committee's Know Your Rights tip sheet, which is available here: http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/projects/employment_discrimination?id=0008

To read Ms. Jones' article, please click here: http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/the_black_diaspora_news/20191

U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Employers Can be Held Liable for Each Use of Results of a Discriminatory Test

Tue, 25 May 2010 00:00:00 -0700

On May 24, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Lewis v. City of Chicago, ruling that employers can be held liable each time they use the results of a discriminatory test.

Between 1996 and 2002, the city of Chicago relied on the results of a test that disproportionately excluded African-American applicants for firefighter positions. The city relied on the test results to hire eleven disproportionately white firefighter classes. The Lewis plaintiffs filed their charges of discrimination when the city made hiring decisions on the basis of the discriminatory test. The city argued that the Title VII claims were time-barred because the claims were not filed within 300 days after the city first announced its hiring plan. The Court rejected the city's argument and concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were timely.

Click here for the Supreme Court's decision.

Click here for the amicus brief that the Lawyers' Committee filed with the National Partnership for Women and Families and the National Women's Law Center.

Are bad background checks keeping blacks out of work?

Wed, 19 May 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Legislation Introduced to Address Inaccuracies in FBI Database and Criminal Information Released to Employers. Read more here.

Articles about the Census Hiring Discrimination Lawsuit

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0700

NEW YORK TIMES - We Can’t Tell You Why – NYT Op-Ed

The Census Discrimination Lawsuit was the subject of an editorial piece published in the New York Times on April 20, 2010. After discussing the basis of the suit, the op-ed took the position that the “federal government needs to develop a fair and transparent screening system for job applicants and a more effective appeals process.”

To read the article, please click here.

WASHINGTON POST - Applicants with criminal records challenge census job-screening practices

The Washington Post published an article on April 14 reporting on the lawsuit that the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has filed against the U.S. Census Bureau in conjunction with a New York law firm and six other public interest organizations. The article describes the situations of two claimants who are challenging the Census Bureau’s policy of denying jobs to those who have minor criminal histories. The lawsuit charges that their policy disparately affects African Americans, Latinos, and members of other minority groups. As mentioned in the piece, the Census Bureau has been unspecific in describing which types of crimes preclude an applicant from progressing in the hiring process. It also describes the U.S. Census Bureau’s burdensome procedure that they require applicants who have committed non-violent crimes, been arrested but not convicted, or convicted of non-serious misdemeanors to undergo if they wish to receive further consideration for one of the over 700,000 positions that the Bureau is currently trying to fill.

To read the article, please click here.

WALL STREET JOURNAL - Suit Accuses Census Bureau of Hiring Bias

The Wall Street Journal published an article on the Lawyers’ Committee’s lawsuit against the U.S. Census Bureau on April 14.

To read the article, please click here.

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER - Phila. woman at center of census lawsuit

On April 14, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article describing the basis of the Census Discrimination Lawsuit and telling the story of one of its main plaintiffs, Ms. Evelyn Houser.

To read the article, please click here.

To read more articles on the Census Hiring Discrimination Lawsuit, please click here.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart: Ninth Circuit Permits Historic Class Action Discrimination Case to Proceed against Wal-Mart

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0700

On April 26, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled 6-5 that approximately 500,000 current female employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. may proceed as a nationwide class action with their sex discrimination in pay and promotion claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The suit against the nation's largest retailer could be the largest employment discrimination class action in history. "Although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable," Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the majority. The class alleges that Wal-Mart pays women less than men for the same jobs and that female employees receive fewer promotions and have to wait longer for those promotions than male counterparts. The Lawyers’ Committee has participated in the case of Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc as amicus curiae in support of class certification. The decision can be found here.

Information about the Census Hiring Discrimination Lawsuit

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Follow the Census Discrimination Lawsuit on Facebook and Twitter:

http://twitter.com/censuslawsuit

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=100000984936431

For more information on the Census Discrimination Lawsuit, please visit our website at
http://www.censusdiscriminationlawsuit.com/

If you think that you may have been a victim of Census Hiring Discrimination, please tell us your story by filling out a brief online questionnaire at http://www.censusdiscriminationlawsuit.com/index.php?option=com_chronocontact&Itemid=96

We Can't Tell You Why

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Lawyers' Committee Instrumental in Announcement of POWER Act

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Applicants with criminal records challenge census job-screening practices

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0700

To read the article, please click here.

Denied a Chance for Honest Work

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0800

The Lawyers' Committee's Access Campaign is working to ensure that employers conduct responsible background checks in keeping with their legal obligations under state and federal law. Employers run afoul of the law when they automatically disqualify candidates without an individualized assessment of the nature and timing of the conviction and the nature of the job in question. And, as noted in this New York Times editorial, connecting former offenders with work opportunities helps to curb recidivism.

For more information about the Lawyers' Committee's Access Campaign, click here.

Former Lawyers' Committee Employment Discrimination Expert Testifies Before Senate Judiciary on Workplace Fairness

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Race Gap: Still Hard At Work

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Lawyers' Committee's Sarah Crawford Quoted on Ricci Decision

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Charleston, SC NBC affiliate, WCBD, published a piece earlier this week examining the Ricci decision and its impact on employers, as well as Judge Sonya Sotomayor's confirmation process. Calling the decision a "real head scratcher," the Lawyers' Committee's own Sarah Crawford explained that the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci "essentially ties employers' hands."

Lawyers' Committee's Sarah Crawford Provides Expert Analysis on Ricci

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Employment Discrimination Project's senior counsel, Sarah Crawford, penned a thorough analysis of Ricci v. DeStefano for the American Constitution Society's blog. "With this decision, the Court has endangered critical equal employment opportunity safeguards that have been in place for decades to encourage employers to utilize tests that are both fair and effective," Crawford opined.

In her second appearance as a guest expert on the Ricci case, Crawford thoroughly dissected yesterday's 5-4 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and discussed a number of glaring issues with the decision:

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the decision is the disregard for the fundamental rule of statutory construction to look to the plain language of a statute and the underlying congressional intent. Looking to the plain language of Title VII, Congress clearly intended for employers to ensure that tests are "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity" and to adopt "alternative employment practice[s]" that would lessen a disparate impact. This decision contravenes the clear legislative language and intent of Title VII.

Not only did the majority ignore congressional intent and the plain language of the statute, but also precedent:

Additionally, the majority failed to engage in a meaningful discussion of Griggs v. Duke Power. Griggs is a nearly forty year old precedent that explained the importance of the disparate impact concept to effective enforcement of Title VII. Instead, the majority looked to affirmative action cases in which employers sought to remedy past discrimination. Ricci is not an affirmative action case. New Haven did not engage in affirmative action; New Haven sought to comply with Title VII's disparate impact provision. New Haven sought to identify a test that was both fair and effective.

Crawford was also surprised that the majority did not remand the case back to the district court, instead issuing an outright reversal. The Court's actions gave the plaintiffs the victory without ever having to prove their case in a trial:

Considering that the trial court had granted summary judgment for the city, it would seem there was at least some question of fact in dispute as to the city's motivation. Instead, the majority ruled for the Ricci plaintiffs, concluding that the city acted to intentionally discriminate against the Ricci plaintiffs.

Crawford finishes her post by seconding Justice Ginsburg's statement in her dissent that, "The Court's order and opinion, I anticipate, will not have staying power."

Click here to read the entire post.

For more information, please visit our Ricci v. DeStefano page.

More Reaction to Ricci Decision

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Supreme Court rules for white firefighters in promotions

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

White New Haven firefighters win Supreme Court case

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Still Invisible in The Labor Force

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Sound the Alarm ... Civil Rights, Still At Risk

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

With the historic election of Barack Obama as this nation's first African American president, we still are in a time where we must "sound the alarm" and heighten awareness of the ongoing struggle for racial justice and equality across the country as never before. The racial contradictions in our society are in many ways peaking instead of waning. Nowhere is this truer than in this term of when the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear nine civil rights cases, almost a record number. All Americans, particularly minorities, must make their voices heard. The time to "sound the alarm" is long overdue as key voting rights, education and employment cases with far-reaching impact take center stage in the high court. The decisions, especially considering the conservative makeup of the court, most likely will significantly affect how federal discrimination and voting rights laws are applied in future cases.

Over more than four decades, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, has been at the forefront of securing equal justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and fair lending, community development, employment discrimination, democracy and voting, educational opportunities and environmental justice.

We have been actively involved in many of the civil rights cases on the Supreme Court's docket this term, submitting amicus, "friends of the court," briefs in most.

Given the results of the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections, the right-wing and anti-civil progress forces are concentrating upon the Supreme Court to further their agenda. Insulated from public pressure and dominated by conservatives the Supreme Court is the perfect branch of government for these forces to direct their messages of "white victimization", "reverse discrimination" and a "post-racial society." It's interesting that Texas attorney Gregory Coleman is the lead lawyer in both the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (MUD) and Ricci v. DeStefano cases. Having no shame, with Obama's election, some, such as Coleman attempt to turn this victory into defeat by asserting this as proof of a post-racial society where there is no continued need for protections under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965.

This backward right-wing anti-civil rights Court campaign is on a collision course with true change in our nation. It's commendable and significant that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., the nation's first African American to so serve, is defending the VRA and that President Obama has noted that despite progress since the VRA, "he does not presume that his election or those advancements have wiped out the need for laws that protect the voting rights of all Americans." The Lawyers' Committee is also pleased with the Senate's confirmation of Elena Kagan as the 45th solicitor general of the United States - and as the first woman to hold the position. It's truly meaningful to the civil rights community to have her as the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court.

Below is more detailed information on important cases in which the Lawyers' Committee is leading the charge in the areas of voting rights, employment and fair lending as well as what you can do to help. With all the gains our nation has made of the past several decades, now is no time to lose our focus on the struggle for racial equality.

Voting Rights
On March 18, 2009, the Lawyers' Committee, along with other civil rights organizations, filed a major brief before the U.S. Supreme Court defending the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The brief was filed on behalf of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP and the Austin Branch of the NAACP to defend the voting rights of racial and language minorities and drafted in partnership with pro bono counsel from the Washington office of the law firm of WilmerHale.

Section 5, widely recognized as one of the most effective civil rights laws ever passed by Congress, requires federal review before new voting procedures can be used in states with histories of discriminatory voting practices. Section 5 was

one of the original provisions of the Voting Rights Act that Congress passed in 1965; since then, Congress reauthorized Section 5 in 1970, 1975, 1982 and most recently, with broad bipartisan support, in 2006. Days after Congress' 2006 reauthorization was signed into law by President Bush, advocates who intend to limit minority voting rights picked this little water district to challenge the constitutionality of this significant civil rights act.

At the urging of these right-wing advocates, the utility district, located in Travis County, Texas, sought to be exempted from Section 5 coverage via the so-called "bailout" provision of the Voting Rights Act, or, in the alternative, to have the reauthorized Section 5 declared unconstitutional. The Texas State Conference of the NAACP and Austin Branch of the NAACP intervened in the case as defendants, along with other interested organizations. A three-judge panel dismissed the utility district's case, ruling last year that the district was ineligible to "bail out" from Section 5 coverage, and more importantly, that Section 5 remains constitutional. The utility district then directly appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Lawyers' Committee/WilmerHale brief, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, explains the critical role that Section 5 has played since 1965 in allowing minority voters to enter the political process after decades of discrimination and exclusion, and the wide variety of evidence supporting Congress' conclusion that those gains would be undone if Section 5 expired. Because Section 5 enforces both the Fifteenth Amendment prohibition of racial discrimination in voting and the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition of racial discrimination, Congress acts at the height of its powers when it decides what legislation is needed to remedy and deter such discrimination.

The case will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 29, 2009, and a decision is expected by the end of the Court's term in June.

Anxiety and anticipation regarding the MUD case is heightened by the Supreme Court's negative opinion, decided March 9, 2009, in Bartlett v. Strickland, which held (5-4 decision) that a requirement in a minority vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a numerical majority in a single-member district. As a result, minority voters will not be protected under Section 2 in future redistrictings unless they can make up a majority of voters in a district.

Employment

The case of Ricci v. DeStefano was argued before the court on April 22, 2009. In this case, the city of New Haven, Connecticut declined to certify the results of a firefighter promotion test based on evidence that the test discriminated on the basis of race. The city sought to explore less discriminatory alternatives, in keeping with its obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, this case has become a "cause celebre" of the right and has been repeatedly misrepresented in the media as a "reverse discrimination" case where innocent white firefighters were denied promotions because of their race.

A joint brief of the Lawyers' Committee, NAACP, National Urban League and the Equal Justice Society filed in this case urged the Court to uphold the Second Circuit's decision in favor of the city, arguing that the city's actions were entirely consistent with its obligations to provide equal employment opportunity and to refrain from discrimination under both Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Questions asked by the members of the Court showed a deep division between the conservative justices who clung to the "reverse discrimination" arguments and the more liberal justices who contended this case was about voluntary non-discrimination efforts.

Afterwards, African American firefighters from throughout the nation rallied at the Supreme Court in protest of the injustices that could be wrought by an unfavorable decision.

Fair Lending

Besides the key voting and employment cases which the Court is considering this term, attention must be paid to the fair lending case which was argued on April 28th. Again, the Lawyers' Committee and two other national civil rights organizations, the National Fair Housing Alliance and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., filed an amicus curiae, "friend of the court," brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Cuomo v. The Clearing House Association, L.L.C. The brief supports the New York Attorney General's continued efforts to enforce state fair lending laws against national banks and asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling halting such enforcement. This case questions if New York and other states should investigate racial and ethnic disparities in the mortgage rates charged by national banks, or if only the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have that power. A holdover from the anti-civil rights regime of the Bush Administration, this case is still proceeding under the new Administration.

For more information about the other leading civil rights pending before the Supreme Court this term which also may significantly impact racial and ethnic justice, click here.

Although our nation has made tremendous progress in eradicating racial and ethnic discrimination in voting, employment and housing since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, these gains are fragile and unfinished. Unless the courts, Congress and the President continue to enforce civil rights, there is risk that those opposed to equality for all could revert to old practices of discrimination or as we have seen with recent voting suppression techniques, create new ones.

Therefore, alarms, bells and whistles need to be sounded across the country at the highest possible decibels. Civil rights of minorities continue to be threatened at disturbing rates. Let your voices, and your alarms be heard!

What You Can Do

Attend or encourage friends in the Washington, D.C. area to attend the April 29th VRA Rally being sponsored by the NAACP at the Supreme Court.
Spread awareness of the threat to the VRA and prepare for a new legislative fight in the Congress.
Following the end of the Supreme Court's term, urge Congress to consider corrective legislation to address the Bartlett decision.
Visit the Lawyers' Committee's Web site for updates, www.lawyerscommittee.org.

Click here to download this as a PDF.

High Court Hears Argument in New Haven Firefighter Case

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The case of Ricci v. DeStefano stems from the decision of the city of New Haven, Connecticut to decline to certify the results of a promotional exam that disproportionately screened out minority test-takers. The test would have all but excluded African-American and Hispanic firefighters from promotional opportunities within the city's fire department. When the city decided not to go ahead with the promotions, white firefighters who fared well on the test filed a lawsuit, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the intentional discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city. After losing their appeal to the Second Circuit, the white firefighters brought their claim to the Supreme Court.

In its amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law defended the city's actions. The brief argued that the city's decision to decline to certify the test results was justified by evidence that the exam disproportionately screened out minority test-takers, in light of evidence that fairer, more effective tests could be used to fill the vacancies. The Lawyers' Committee's brief urged the Supreme Court to protect Title VII's equal employment opportunity safeguards that have been in place for decades to encourage employers to utilize tests that are both fair and effective. These safeguards recognize the reality of implicit bias and encourage employers to identify and correct bias in selection procedures proactively.

On April 22, the Supreme Court heard oral argument before an overflow crowd. The white firefighters were represented by Gregory Coleman of Yetter, Warden & Coleman. Mr. Coleman argued that racial classifications are inherently pernicious and engender divisiveness. He invoked "principles of individual dignity" and warned that the rule set out by the Second Circuit could lead to "soft quotas." He suggested that the Court has always expressed skepticism and hostility to governmental consideration of race. Mr. Coleman argued that the plaintiffs had earned the promotions, although he admitted that the plaintiffs did not have a vested right to the promotions. He asked the Court to impose a strict scrutiny standard that would require the city to prove that it had a strong basis in evidence to conclude that proceeding with the promotions would have violated the law.

The city of New Haven was represented by Christopher Meade of Wilmer Hale. Mr. Meade asked the Court to affirm the Second Circuit's grant of summary judgment for the city. Mr. Meade argued that employers should be granted some limited flexibility to comply with Title VII's disparate impact provision. He warned that a contrary rule would discourage employers from removing barriers to equal opportunity. He argued that the city's actions should not trigger strict scrutiny. Thus, New Haven should only be required to demonstrate that the city had a reasonable basis to believe that the test was flawed and that better alternatives were available. Mr. Meade argued that the white plaintiffs had no entitlement to be promoted on the basis of a flawed or discriminatory test.

Edwin Kneedler argued on behalf of the Solicitor General. Mr. Kneedler noted that the principle of disparate impact has been fundamental to Title VII since Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971). He noted that Title VII requires employers to consider any disparate impact, and that voluntary compliance is the preferred method for achieving Title VII's objectives. Mr. Kneedler argued that the city did not favor one race over another. The government's brief largely supported the legal arguments of the city; however, the government ultimately recommended that the case should be remanded to allow a jury to decide the factual question of the city's motivation. The Solicitor General argued that there was a factual question as to whether the city was motivated by an interest in complying with Title VII, an interest in promoting diversity, or an interest in promoting minority role models. While Mr. Kneedler asserted that the government did not believe that promoting minority role models would constitute a compelling interest, Mr. Kneedler asserted that the government would argue that diversity could be a compelling interest.

The Court engaged in a lively debate. The questioning from Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg, suggested their approval for the city's decision to decline to certify the test results. By stark contrast, the questions from Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, and Justice Alito evidenced clear disapproval for the city's actions. As Justice Thomas is expected to vote with his more conservative colleagues, Justice Kennedy is yet again expected to cast the deciding vote.

Justice Ginsburg noted the history of discrimination by fire and police departments. She questioned whether a multiple-choice promotional exam that tested rote memory provides the best measure to identify candidates for promotion in a fire department. She referred to record evidence that suggested that the test was not job-related and that a better test was available. Justice Ginsburg analogized the test at issue to physical fitness tests that screen out women as well as the high school diploma requirement that was rejected in Griggs.

Justice Souter commented that the city found itself in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation" and that Congress could not have intended to force employers to "blunder ahead" and make employment decisions on the basis of tests with clear disparate impact. He noted that the city would be "asking for trouble" if they went forward with the promotions in light of the severe racial disparity. He noted that not all race-conscious decisions are discriminatory and argued that it was reasonable to give the city an opportunity to start again when it was acting in good faith.

Justice Breyer asserted that compliance with a race-conscious federal statute is not discrimination. He drew analogies to other types of government action that involve racial considerations. He asked counsel to comment on a municipality's flexibility to redraw school district boundaries in an effort to enhance diversity. He also asked whether an employer could extend an application deadline in an effort to obtain a more diverse applicant pool.

Justice Stevens asked if the city had a valid government interest in avoiding a disparate impact, putting aside concern for liability.

Justice Roberts asserted that the city should have been equally concerned about not only the disparate impact claim from minorities who fared poorly on the test, but also an intentional discrimination claim from the whites who fared well. He asserted that an employer cannot violate the constitution in order to comply with a statute. He expressed concern that the rule suggested by the city would give employers a blank check to discriminate.

Justice Scalia was clearly focused on the rights of the "winners" who fared well on the test, only to have the test results set aside. He argued that a jury should decide whether the city actually had an impermissible racial motive and engaged in "racial politics." He did not believe that the city's decision to throw out the results was race neutral. He argued that Title VII's disparate impact provision and Title VII's intentional discrimination provision are "at war with each other" in this case.

Justice Alito suggested that employers could not act on the basis of evidence of statistical disparity alone. He also suggested that the testing expert who provided testimony at the city's hearings that the exams were flawed merely had a business interest in challenging the validity of exams that were designed by a competitor. Justice Alito asserted that the question of the city's motivation in declining to certify the exam results should be decided by a jury.

Justice Kennedy was "troubled" by the city's actions. He asserted that the city classified the successful and unsuccessful candidates by race. He offered a hypothetical that was designed to test whether "race-consciousness is ever permissible." On the other hand, he acknowledged that New Haven had found itself in a "Catch-22."

Indeed, what began as a difficult question for the city of New Haven, Connecticut is now a difficult question to be decided by our nation's highest court, and the future of Title VII's equal employment opportunity safeguards hang in the balance.

Rights Groups Back Black Firefighters

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Click here to read the Independent's article.

US Supreme Court to Rule on Important Challenges to Civil Rights Laws

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Audrey Wiggins on Panel Discussing the Arbitration Fairness Act

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0800

On February 18, 2009, Audrey Wiggins appeared on a panel at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights entitled "The Arbitration Fairness Act: Ensuring a Fair Hearing for Consumers and Victims of Workplace Discrimination." Audrey discussed how the enforcement of pre-dispute binding mandatory arbitration clauses practically are more than a change of venue to resolve discrimination claims. Rather, due to the all too often reliance by the arbitrators on the employers for their business, the lack of discovery, and the hostility to bring class wide claims, a civil rights plaintiffs rights are severely restricted in this forum. The other panelists were Paul Bland, a Staff Attorney for Public Justice and Donna Lenhoff, Legislative & Public Policy Director for the National Employment Lawyers Association.