EEOC’s Definition of Workplace Harassment

Harassment

Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA).

Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.

Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.

Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

• The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
• The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
• Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the victim.

Prevention is the best tool to eliminate harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take appropriate steps to prevent and correct unlawful harassment. They should clearly communicate to employees that unwelcome harassing conduct will not be tolerated. They can do this by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process, providing anti-harassment training to their managers and employees, and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains. Employers should strive to create an environment in which employees feel free to raise concerns and are confident that those concerns will be addressed.

Employees are encouraged to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. Employees should also report harassment to management at an early stage to prevent its escalation.

Employer Liability for Harassment

The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor’s harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.

The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.

When investigating allegations of harassment, the EEOC looks at the entire record: including the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination of whether harassment is severe or pervasive enough to be illegal is made on a case-by-case basis.

If you believe that the harassment you are experiencing or witnessing is of a specifically sexual nature, you may want to see EEOC’s information on sexual harassment.

Washington Post: Judge allows discrimination suit against Prince George’s schools to move forward

Posted at  04:55 PM ET, 04/24/2012

TheWashingtonPost

Judge allows discrimination suit against Prince George’s schools to move forward

By Ovetta Wiggins

It appears the winner of the first round in a legal battle against the Prince George’s Board of Education is a group of plaintiffs who have alleged discrimination by school leaders.

A federal district court judge ruled recently that more than a dozen lawsuits filed against the school system can be recognized as Title VI claims, which means in part that the lawsuits can move forward without a damage cap.

Some past and present system employees allege in the lawsuits that they were discriminated against because they are female, white, African, or  light-skinned African American. The school system has denied all the accusations.

The school system had argued that the cases should have been filed under a different statute – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which would have meant that the complaints would have been investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The commission decides if a lawsuit is warranted and caps the damages at $300,000.

Bryan Chapman, the plaintiffs’ attorney, argued that Title VI was applicable because the alleged incidents occurred when the school system accepted federal stimulus money in 2008. The lawsuits are seeking between $5 million and $10 million.

In his opinion, Judge Peter J. Messitte writes: “Section 601 of Title VI provides: ‘No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.’”

The board asked for the claims to be dismissed, arguing that the primary purpose of the federal funds was for educational services for students, not to create or retain jobs. The court disagreed.

Chapman said he was not surprised by the judge’s findings.

“There is a sense of relief, but not surprise,” he said. “I question their judgement on allowing this to get to this point. There will be more claims on individual hostile work environments.”

The school system said it would continue to fight the suits.

“The Court’s ruling requires the plaintiffs to prove their cases on the merits,” Briant Coleman, a school spokesman said in an e-mail. “And we intend to strongly defend against each case that has been filed.”

The lawsuits largely stem from complaints against Largo High School and its principal Angelique Simpson Marcus.

Chapman said Simpson Marcus would call secretaries names, such as “chicken heads” and “hood rats.”

The teachers said they were also mistreated for supporting Jon Everhart, a white teacher, who said he thought Simpson Marcus wanted to fire him because of his race.

By Ovetta Wiggins | 04:55 PM ET, 04/24/2012

Retaliation In The Work Place? Allegations Within The Bureau of Prisons

 

Walter Pavlo, contributor

December 6, 2011

Forbes

One would think that working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has its risks; like being attacked by some tattooed covered inmate.  However, a report from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) says that “widespread retaliation” is a problem in the BOP.

Image via Wikipedia

Carlton M. Hadden, Director OFO, came to his conclusion after a lengthy process that resulted in a final report issued to the BOP on November 24, 2010. The BOP is responsible for the custody and care of more than 214,000 federal inmates and has over 35,000 employees.  In August 2007, the OFO sent a letter outlining concerns it had about employment related retaliation complaints at the BOP that were significantly higher than in any other branch of the government (In FY 2005 complaints containing retaliation allegations at the BOP were 73.7% compared to 39.1% government wide).  It took OFO three (3) years after it began its initial investigation to publish the report after disagreements with the BOP over the results.

The study consisted of a combination of a survey sent to all Bureau of Prison employees and site visits (3 prisons) to conduct interviews.  The survey had under a 10% response rate, something the BOP argued about prior to the formal release of the report by saying that the use of “widespread retaliation” is not accurate since so few participated.  One retired corrections officer, who asked that I not reveal his identity, told me that the survey required that the employees provide their name on the survey (see EEOC report in Exhibits), they would have no anonymity.  Probably something OFO should have considered when the study involves employees who fear retaliation!  The OFO countered that even with the small number of surveys received, the on site investigations/interviews provided similar results indicating an environment of intimidation.

The OFO found many management officials were hesitant to be candid and one even asked to “go off the record,” which is an odd request when the OFO was tasked with putting a report “on the record.”  Here are some other curious comments from prison employees interviewed by the OFO:

- “I am not going to say that harassment has not happened here,… but there are no official reports of it.”

- “Once you file a complaint management will immediately punish you.”

-”It’s common knowledge that if you go against the grain something will happen to you.”

One prison employee who was interviewed by OFO’s team returned a second time to the evaluation team to report that the warden had reported that he had a list of everyone who was going to speak to the OFO evaluation team.  I’m no expert but I would call these examples of retaliation….the latter example occurring in the middle of the investigation!

A former BOP employee, Shirley Minter-Smith, had filed her own lawsuit against the BOP for discrimination and retaliation.  After a trial in October 2007, a jury agreed with her and found the BOP liable for damages and back pay of close to $500,000, plus a recalculation of Minter-Smith’s pension annuity (lump sum).  The judge also order the BOP to pay her legal fees.

With the findings of the OFO and successful awards like those of Ms. Minter-Smith, other BOP employees are looking to file their own lawsuit.  On September 30, 2010, Administrative Judge Nancy A. Weeks gave the case of Dennis R. Turner, et al., v. Eric Holder, Attorney General, Department of Justice-BOP, class action status.  The plaintiffs allege they have suffered retaliation as a result of filing EEO complaints.  One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, John Mosby, told me in a phone interview that the case is at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) awaiting review after objections were filed by the BOP.  ”The EEOC is grossly understaffed and this could take years,” Mosby said, “but these are good people (plaintiffs) who have put their career on the line to change the culture and behavior of the BOP.”  How many BOP employees (current and former) have sought to be included in the class action? ”Well over 2,000,” Mosby said.

Another BOP employee is alleged to have vented his work frustrations to a point that violated the law.  Scott A. Holencik, at the time the warden of the Federal Correctional Institution I Victorville (northeast of Los Angeles), was said to have opened an account on the website www.prisonofficer.org.  The website provides information and news on issues concerning…well, prison stuff.  It also allows readers to comment, and that landed Holencik in trouble with the feds who allege he violated the Trade Secrets Act by divulging information deemed confidential and then lied to investigators when they questioned him about the posts.  In an indictment, prosecutors allege that Holencik, under the username “VIMshooter” disclosed information about a prison employee suspected of involvement in an inmate gambling operation, as well as details about a homicide that occurred at the prison in August 2009.   A federal judge, Virginia Phillips, has already ruled that the information posted on the PrisonOfficer website was not confidential, thereby dismissing those charges.  Holencik’s lawyer, Geri Lynn Green, disputes that Holencik was even responsible for the posts and further that it is irrelevant because the posts were protected by the 1st Amendment (free speech) rights.  Holencik went as far to set up his own website to dedicated to protecting free speech. No court date has been set for Holencik’s trial on remaining charges of lying to federal investigators but his pension has been suspended and his insurance coverage through the government cancelled.   Coincidently, FCI Victorville was one of the three prisons designated for site visit interviews by the OFO during its investigation of retaliation abuse.  Holencik was gone by the time those interviews were conducted.

All of the above occurred while BOP Director Harley Lappin was in charge. Lappin, who retired earlier this year, is now Chief Corrections Officer at Corrections Corporation of America, a company that runs private prisons to house state and federal inmates…so the BOP is looking for a new director.  Groups including the American Bar Association, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Human Rights Watch wrote U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to appoint someone from outside the bureau since all BOP directors since 1964 have been promoted from within.  Their thinking is that major changes are needed to the culture of the BOP.  The interim BOP director is Thomas Kane … and boy does he have his hands full.  Kane has been with the BOP since July 1977.

Federal Court recognizes Title VI (race discrimination and retaliation) claims against the Board of Education of Prince George’s County.

On April 9, 2012, a Maryland federal court issued an opinion that recognizes Title VI (race discrimination and retaliation) claims against the Board of Education of Prince George’s County, because the school board received federal stimulus funds.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in employment and employment practices in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.

From 2009 to 2012, the Board of Education of Prince George’s County was the recipient of over $100 million in federal assistance under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and the Education Job Fund.  Ten pending lawsuits against the Board of Education of Prince George’s County allege race discrimination and retaliation by the school system.

§2000d Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color or national origin

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Title VI, like Title IX, also encompasses claims of retaliation.  Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. Of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005); Preston v. Virginia, 31 F.3d 203 (4^th Cir. 1994).

For plaintiffs, Title VI has advantages over Title VII:

1) Under Title VI, the plaintiff need not file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before fiing a lawsuit in federal court.  Under Title VII, the plaintiff is required to file a complaint with EEOC as a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit in federal court.

2) Under Title VI, depending on the state, the plaintiff could have three years in which to file a lawsuit in federal court.  Under Title VII, the statute of limitations for filing a complaint with EEOC is generally 180 days.

3) Under Title VI, there is no stated limit on damage awards.  Under Title VII, compensatory and punitive damage awards are capped at $300,000.

A word of caution:  In private actions, Title VI requires that the defendant receive “actual notice” and exhibit “deliberate indifference”.  These requirements severely restrict the use of Title VI in private actions.

Bryan A. Chapman, Esquire

www.baclaw.com

Washington Post’s Blog: Paperwork piles up in Prince George’s teacher discrimination cases

Posted at  05:56 PM ET, 11/01/2011

Paperwork piles up in Pr. Geo’s teacher discrimination cases

By  Robert Samuels

Is there something systemically wrong with the way Prince George’s school system is training its leaders?

That’s the case attorney Bryan Chapman has been trying to make for nearly a year, through flooding the district courts with lawsuits against the school board alleging that the principals and other supervisors have run amok.

He is representing angry employees, of the past and present, who claim discrimination for being a woman, or white, or African, or a light-skinned  African American. The school system has denied all the accusations.

The judge already dismissed the idea of filing one case that encompasses all the complaints. By August, Chapman had filed lawsuits on behalf of 16 staff members, alleging the system violated the Civil Rights Act. Since then, he’s filed four more. Four of the cases have been heard in the federal district court in Greenbelt over the past two weeks, the most recent on Monday.

Three of the four cases have been dismissed, with Judge Peter J. Messitte instructing Chapman to add more detail to his lawsuits.

So far, both the school system and Chapman are voicing confidence they will succeed. Here are their perspectives in a debate that threatens to cost the system millions:

Chapman’s view: Typically, employee discrimination cases are filed under a part of the Civil Rights Act that caps damages at $300,000. Chapman’s biggest victory so far is that the judge has not yet thrown out the idea that the system’s acceptance of federal stimulus dollars in 2008 allows for them to be sued under a different statute of the Civil Rights Acts, giving clients the ability to seek damages beyond $300,000.

Chapman is also relieved that the judge has not yet dismissed the cases outright, but rather given the option to file them again, with amendments.  That means there’s still an opportunity for his clients to reap big dividends from the struggling system — most are asking for damages in the range of $5 million to $10 million.

School system’s perspective:Abbey G. Hairston is representing the school board. She’s arguing that the judge’s call for Chapman to refashion the lawsuits only proves the cases are shaky.

Chapman has already refiled two of the four cases that have been heard so far, and Hairston plans to argue that those cases should be dismissed as well.

As for the 13 cases waiting to be heard, she’ll be making a similar argument that they are poorly constructed and are based on improper interpretation of the Civil Rights Act. She is also arguing that the clog of paperwork will ultimately damage a financially fragile school system by forcing it to spend money that could be used in classrooms.

// By Robert Samuels | 05:56 PM ET, 11/01/2011

A breast cancer survivor experiences a victory in federal court against her employer, the State of Maryland.

Arlene Moore was a 17 year employee of Patuxent Institution, a State of Maryland correctional facility.  Ms. Moore is a correctional officer and breast cancer survivor.  Ms. Moore was terminated by Patuxent Institution when she notified them that her doctor had cleared her to return to work after an eight month medical leave of absence.  Ms. Moore filed a lawsuit against the State of Maryland in federal court.
On September 12, 2011, the U.S. District Court denied the State of Maryland’s motion to dismiss Ms. Moore’s lawsuit.  The court stated, “…  Indeed, Ms. Moore was cleared to return to work just one day after she was allegedly terminated by the State.  The State’s motion to dismiss will therefore be denied.”

Bryan A. Chapman, Equire

www.baclaw.com

Special Education student files OCR complaint alleging abuse by Prince George’s County Public Schools with the U.S. Department of Education

Jasper Braswell, a former special education student, alleges that a security guard at Duval High School regularly demanded money from him and other special education students.  In 2010, when Jasper reported the security guard, the school retaliated by filing criminal charges against Jasper.

OCR COMPLAINT FORM

1. Enter information about you.

Your First Name: Jasper         Your Last Name: Braswell

Your Address: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

City: Lanham

State: MD     Zip Code: 20706

Best Time to Call You: DAY     Primary Phone No: xxxxxxxx

2. Who else can we call if we cannot reach you?

Contact’s Name: Bryan Chapman

Daytime Phone No: 202-558-6168

E-mail: bchapman@baclaw.com

Relationship to you: my attorney

3. Who was discriminated against?

Jasper Braswell

4. What institution discriminated?

Institution Name: Prince George’s County Public Schools

Address:  14201 School Lane

City: Upper Marboro

State: MD

Zip Code: 20772

School or department involved: DuVal High School

5. Have you tried to resolve the complaint through the institution’s grievance process, due process hearing, or with another agency?

No

6. Describe the discrimination

OCR enforces regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin; sex; disability; and/or age.

All that apply:

disability

retaliation:  you filed a complaint or asserted your rights

Why you believe the discrimination was because of race, sex, disability, or whatever basis you indicated above or why you believe the action was retaliatory.

Jasper Braswell is learning disabled and has been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD).  Jasper is 18 years old.
Jasper was a special education student at Duval High School.  Jasper graduated from Duval High School in June 2011.  From 2009 until 2011, Ulysses Lee, a security guard, regularly demanded money from Jasper and several other special education students.  Mr. Lee kept the money for his personal use.  Mr. Lee threatened to get the students suspended if they did not provide Mr. Lee with money on demand.
Mr. Lee demanded money from the students under the guise that their money was gambling money.
Individuals with attention deficit disorder are generally prone to addictive behavior, such as, gambling.  Mr. Lee allowed Jasper and other special education students to gamble on the condition that they gave him money on demand.  In Jasper’s case, Mr. Lee demanded money from him every couple of days.
In October 2010, Jasper mentioned Mr. Lee’s activities to Parris Easley, a special education teacher.  Mr. Easley insisted that Jasper tell his parents about Mr. Lee’s demands for money.  Mr. Easley also reported Mr. Lee’s activities to the school’s administration.
However, the administration took no disciplinary action against Mr. Lee.  Instead, the administration filed criminal charges against Jasper, accusing him of gambling on school property.  A judge throw out the charges against Jasper.

7. Your complaint must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory action

When did the last act of discrimination occur?

Enter the date: 06/01/2011 (mm/dd/yyyy)

Are you requesting a waiver of the 180-day filing time limit for discrimination that occurred more than 180 days before the filing of this complaint?

No.

8. What would you like the institution to do as a result of your complaint – what remedy are you seeking?

Investigate Mr. Lee’s demands for money from special education students.  Investigate Duval High School’s decision to file criminal charges against Jasper Braswell.

Do you have written information that you think will help us understand your complaint?

Yes

Prince George’s County Public School Teacher Faces Retaliation After Reporting Abuse of Special Education Students

Teacher files a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.        OCR COMPLAINT FORM   1. Enter information about you.   Your First Name: Parris          Your Last Name: Easley Your Address: xxxxxxxxx City: Bowie State: MD     Zip Code: 20721 Best Time to Call You: EVENING     Primary Phone No: xxxxxxxxx 2. Who else can we call if we cannot reach you? Contact’s Name: Bryan A. Chapman, Esquire Daytime Phone No: 202-558-6168 Email Address: bchapman@baclaw.com   Relationship to you: my attorney 3. Who was discriminated against? Parris  Easley 4. What institution discriminated? Institution Name: Prince George’s County Public Schools Address:  14201 School Lane City: Upper Marlboro State: MD Zip Code: 20772 School or department involved: Duval High School 5. Have you tried to resolve the complaint through the institution’s grievance process, due process hearing, or with another agency? No Agency Name: Date Filed:  (mm/dd/yyyy) Status: 6. Describe the discrimination OCR enforces regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin; sex; disability; and/or age. All that apply: Retaliation: you filed a complaint or asserted your rights Why you believe the discrimination was because of race, sex, disability, or whatever basis you indicated above or why you believe the action was retaliatory. I, Parris Easley, am a special education teacher at Duval High School.  I have been a teacher in Prince George’s County Public Schools for sixteen years.  Until I complained about the mistreatment of special education students by a security guard, my job performance had always been rated satisfactory. In October 2010, a special education student complained to me that a security guard, Ulysses Lee, was shaking him and other special education students down for money.  According to the student, this practice had been going on for years.  These students suffer from attention deficit disorder (ADD) and are prone to addictive behavior, such as, gambling.  Under the guise of confiscating gambling money, Mr. Lee was keeping the money instead of turning the money over to the appropriate officials.  Allegedly, Mr. Lee told the students that his shake downs was the cost of doing business. I immediate reported the student’s complaint to my immediate supervisor, an assistant principal.  Mr. Lee was summoned but he merely pledged to go after the students.  In a threatening manner, Mr. Lee later approached me and accused me of jeapardizing his job. Shortly thereafter, Principal Eric Harrison approached me and in a agitated manner accused me of going over his head when I relayed the student’s complaint against Mr. Lee.  He told me that if I did not like it, I could transfer to another school. In November 2010, I was falsely accused of assaulting a student and then falsely accused of misappropriating school funds.  The accusations were quickly dropped, but I was convinced that Mr. Lee, Principal Harrison, and High School Consortium Director Sylvester Conyers were out to get me.  Another special education student complained to me about Mr. Lee’s shake downs for money.  I filed a complaint with the Prince George’s County Public Schools’ hotline. In December 2010, I suffered from an anxiety attack that was so severe that I ended up in a hospital emergency room.  I continue to receive treatment and medication for anxiety. In January 2011, Mr. Harrison rated me unsatisfactory on my mid year evaluation and warned me to stay away from Mr. Lee. Later, I witnessed Mr. Lee assault one of the students who had complained about him.  Mr. Lee thrusted his forearm into the student’s throat, Mr. Lee then slammed the student against the wall, finally, Mr. Lee locked the student’s head in a choke hold. The school filed criminal charges against the student who originally complained to me about Mr. Lee’s behavior.  He was charged with gambling on school premises, but the charges were dropped by a judge. In June 2011, Mr. Harrison rated my job performance unsatisfactory for the 2010 – 2011 school year.  If I receive a unsatisfactory rating for the 2011 – 2012 school year, I could be terminated. 7. Your complaint must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory action When did the last act of discrimination occur? Enter the date: 6/1/2011 (mm/dd/yyyy) Are you requesting a waiver of the 180-day filing time limit for discrimination that occurred more than 180 days before the filing of this complaint? No. 8. What would you like the institution to do as a result of your complaint – what remedy are you seeking? Investigate the student complaints against Mr. Lee and the retaliatory actions against me. Do you have written information that you think will help us understand your complaint? Yes

---

P.G. Gazette: Employees sue Prince George’s school board for discrimination.

Published: Thursday, August 25, 2011
Employees sue Prince George’s school board for discrimination by Abby Brownback
Staff Writer

Hearings in the cases of 16 employees of Prince George’s County Public Schools who are suing the school board for $5 million each, alleging they faced discrimination and hostile work environments, are slated to begin Oct. 18 and continue into November in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt.

Eleven of employees work or worked at Largo High School.

The cases show “a pattern of this type of thing going on throughout the school system,” said Bryan A. Chapman, the Washington, D.C.-based lawyer representing each of the plaintiffs.

In each complaint, the plaintiffs describe discrimination, intimidation and retaliation from superiors in county high schools based on race, age, national origin or their support for another teacher.

“We plan to vigorously oppose each lawsuit as we do not believe any of them have merit,” Briant Coleman, the school system’s spokesman, wrote in an email to The Gazette. “These cases are not an indicator that PGCPS has a problem with discrimination lawsuits. Given that there are 18,000 employees, lawsuits filed by 16 individuals is not a flood.”

Five of the cases name the Prince George’s County Educators Association, a union, as a co-defendant.
Christopher Feldenzer, a Towson-based attorney representing PGCEA, said the union denies the allegations. Feldenzer has filed motions to dismiss each of the cases.

Many of the cases can trace their origin to Jon Everhart, a white man who taught English at Largo High starting in 2003. Then a gym teacher and now the principal, Angelique Simpson-Marcus made racially derogatory comments about Everhart, Chapman said, and moved him from teaching upper-level English classes to freshman classes.

Three former Largo High secretaries filed lawsuits alleging Simpson-Marcus called them graphic and offensive names such as “hood rat” and “chicken head.”

Other school employees allege they were harrassed by Simpson-Marcus for supporting Everhart, Chapman said.

Simpson-Marcus referred a request for comment to Coleman.

Thirteen of the complaints were filed as a single case Nov. 22 in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, but Judge Peter J. Messitte dismissed the case, telling Chapman to file them individually, which he did in May.

In addition to the 11 cases involving Largo High, five other cases have been filed by employees who worked at Bladensburg High School, Central High School in Capitol Heights, Crossland High School in Temple Hills, DuVal High School in Lanham and Laurel High School.

Greenbelt-based Thatcher Law Firm LLC, which is representing the school system, did not return a call for comment by Tuesday morning.

Josephat Mua, who was the information technology coordinator at Laurel High, said he observed in 2008 teachers failing to sign the required contracts to check out equipment and the improper use of school-based funds to purchase computer equipment. When he complained to the school system’s internal audit department, he was demoted to the position of IT coordinator for six elementary schools.

Laurel High Principal Dwayne Jones declined to comment.

At one of the elementary schools to which Mua was assigned, Columbia Park Elementary School in Landover, he said he allegedly found the Principal Michelle Tyler-Skinner selling jewelry out of an empty classroom. When he complained, Mua, who is originally from Kenya, said he was reassigned to a job as a help desk technician, where he received calls from people who called him an “[expletive] Nigerian.”

“I let them get away with it at Laurel,” he said. “This time I decided to go up to them.”

A call to Tyler-Skinner was not immediately returned Tuesday morning.

Employees are familiar with the administrative procedure for filing complaints about alleged discrimination, Coleman wrote, and the procedure will not change for this school year.

abrownback@gazette.net

© 2011 Post-Newsweek Media, Inc./Gazette.Net

Baltimore Sun (August 2, 2003): Federal jury awards ex-correctional officer $1.16 million from state.

Indian man wins discrimination suit

Federal jury awards ex-correctional officer $1.16 million from state

August 02, 2003|By Julie Bykowicz | Julie Bykowicz,SUN STAFF

While inside the walls of the Patuxent Institution in Howard County, retired correctional officer Mathen Chacko says he spent two decades confined in a different sort of prison.Fellow employees mocked his thick accent, telling him to “go back to India” and calling him a “camel jockey,” he says. Even supervisors laughed, Chacko says, and prison administrators did nothing.

“When I complained, I was told, `We cannot stop anyone’s mouth,’ ” 63-year-old Chacko, who was born and raised in southern India, recalled yesterday.

Last week, in what could be the largest such award against the state Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, federal jurors said Chacko should receive $1.16 million in his discrimination lawsuit.

State lawyers who represent the department plan to file post-trial motions next week and are likely to seek a new trial and a reduction in the damages awarded.

Department spokesman Mark A. Vernarelli said in a written statement that the agency believes Chacko “absolutely did not prove a hostile work environment within the meaning of the controlling federal anti-discrimination law.”

But Chacko’s lawyer called the jury award — essentially symbolic because federal law limits Maryland’s liability to $300,000 — vindication for a man whose emotional and physical health suffered because of unfair treatment at the treatment-based prison in Jessup.

“He needs to be compensated for what he went through,” said attorney Bryan A. Chapman. “Apparently, a jury agrees.”

At his two-story brick home in Baltimore County’s Rosedale community yesterday, Chacko spread on his dining room table 20 years’ worth of internal complaints, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filings and letters to politicians.

Most of the correspondence went unanswered, he says.

With each incident — from a prison medical contractor telling him he should learn to speak English, to a fellow correctional officer handcuffing him as a joke — Chacko says, he became more nervous and paranoid.

“Every time I walked in that institution, I was getting panic attacks,” he said. “I thought, `What is going to happen today?’”

Daily, he says, people would mimic his accent (particularly upon hearing his voice over the loudspeaker) and would make references to “camels” and “foreigners.”

Ridiculed by co-workers Chacko, who immigrated to the United States in 1975, says co-workers seemed to take pleasure in ridiculing him in front of the inmates, who relished seeing an authority figure being treated badly. He stands at just over 5 feet tall and has a slight build, but Chacko says the prisoners rarely hassled him.