Major Areas of Protection Under Federal Anti-discrimination Laws

LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN A. CHAPMAN

Employment Discrimination Attorney

202 508-1499

bchapman@baclaw.com

www.baclaw.com

sexual harassment    sex discrimination

race discrimination    national origin discrimination

religious discrimination    age discrimination

disability discrimination    retaliation

  • Sex Discrimination
    Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on sex with respect to all terms and conditions of their employment, including but not limited to: hiring, compensation, promotion, treatment on the job, termination.
  • Race Discrimination
    Federal laws protect employees from being treated less favorably, receiving fewer job or promotional opportunities, termination and more—including allowing an employee to be subjected to severe or pervasive harassment—based on race.
  • National Origin Discrimination
    Federal laws protect employees from being treated less favorably, receiving fewer job or promotional opportunities, termination and more—including allowing an employee to be subjected to severe or pervasive harassment—based on national origin.
  • Disability Discrimination
    Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in all employment practices. An employer may not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of that employee’s disability, nor may the employer deny the employee a reasonable workplace accommodation that would allow the employee to perform his or her job.
  • Religious Discrimination
    Federal laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of their religion. This discrimination may come in the form of adverse employment actions, but may also include harassment based on an employee’s religion. Employers are also required to provide reasonable accommodations for their employees’ religious practices and beliefs unless the employer can demonstrate that such an accommodation would cause them an “undue hardship.”
  • Age Discrimination
    Federal laws prohibit the mistreatment of workers age 40 and over because of their age. This includes all aspects of employment including hiring, promotions, training, salary, job assignments and termination. Workplace age discrimination also includes harassment based on age that creates a hostile or offensive work environment.
  • Retaliation
    Federal laws protect employees who oppose discriminatory conditions at work and face retaliation for their actions.  Unlawful retaliation can include refusal to hire, demotion, tranfer to undesirable job duties, or termination of the employee who has filed a charge of discrimination with the employer or with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or has participated in the investigation of discrimination.

Federal Laws

  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – prohibits workplace discrimination based on an employee’s race, sex, national origin, or religion.

 

  • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – prohibits workplace discrimination based on an employee’s disability.

 

  • The Age Discrimination is Employment Act (ADEA) – prohibits workplace discrimination based on an employee’s age.

 

Legal Remedies

  • Back pay for lost wages
  • Front pay for future lost wages
  • Compensatory damages
  • Punitive damages
  • Litigation costs and attorney fees

 

 

Bryan A. Chapman, Esquire

www.baclaw.com

bchapman@baclaw.com

202 508-1499

 

Advertisements

“Mixed Motive” standard eases the burden of proving discrimination

Adverse actions, such as, workplace harassment and terminations, often occur due to a blend of discriminatory and non-discriminatory motivations.

For instance, an African American employee gets into an altercation with a white employee.  The African American employee is terminated but the white employee is retained.  Both employees have comparable work records and are equally to blame for the altercation.  In this example, the race of the African American employee could be “a motivating factor” in his or her termination.

A race discrimination claim could advance under a “mixed motive” theory.  Plaintiff prevails simply by proving that his or her race was “a motivating factor.” Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)

Elements of a “Mixed Motive” Theory:

  1. Plaintiff is a member of a protected group (race, sex, national origin, religion, etc.) and suffered some sort of adverse employment action.
  2. Protected status was “a motivating factor” in the decision.

“[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that…[protected status (not including retaliation)] was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated [and indeed may have caused] the practice.” [Sec. 107 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991]

In Desert Palace v. Costa, 123 S. Ct. 2148 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that plaintiffs could use direct or circumstantial evidence to make the showing necessary to merit a mixed-motive jury instruction.  “[I]t is sufficient for the [plaintiff] to demonstrate that the employer was motivated to take the adverse employment action by both permissible and forbidden reasons…” Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2004).

Bryan A. Chapman, Esquire

www.baclaw.com

 

 

 

Federal Jury Decides That Prince George’s County Public Schools Can Be Held Liable Under Title VI For Race Discrimination and Retaliation.

Jon Everhart will have his day in court.

On February 28, 2014, a federal jury, at the Greenbelt, MD federal courthouse, issued a verdict that means Prince George’s County Public Schools can be found liable under Title VI for race discrimination and retaliation.  Specifically, the jury decided that Prince George’s County Public School received federal assistance, starting in 2009, which had the primary objective of providing employment.  In 2009, PGCPS, which has a annual budget of approximately $1.7 billion, received $140 million in federal stimulus funds which it used to avert laying off hundreds of teachers and other school workers.

The verdict allows Jon Everhart’s $5 million race discrimination/retaliation lawsuit to advance to trial.  The trial is scheduled to begin on July 15, 2014.  Mr. Everhart, a white English teacher, alleges that he was racially harassed by Principal Angelique Simpson-Marcus of Largo High School, who is African American.  The standard of prove under Title VI is the same as under Title VII,  except Title VII has a cap on damages of $300,000 while Title VI has no cap on damages.

Mr. Everhart was hired by PGCPS and assigned to Largo High School in 2003.  From 2003 until 2009, Mr. Everhart was a popular teacher who taught English literature and received perfect job performance evaluations from several Largo High School principals.  In the fall of 2007, Principal Simpson-Marcus became the principal of Largo High School.  In 2009 and 2010, Principal Simpson-Marcus gave Mr. Everhart unsatisfactory job performance evaluations which resulted in his termination in June 2010.

In 2003, students informed Mr. Everhart that Ms. Simpson-Marcus, then a physical education teacher, told her gym class: “The only reason a white man teaches in PG County is that they can’t get a job elsewhere.”  Mr. Everhart filed a union grievance against Ms. Simpson-Marcus alleging racial harassment.  Shortly thereafter, Ms. Simpson-Marcus told Mr. Everhart that if she ever became principal, he would be the first person she would fire.

In the summer of 2007, Ms. Simpson-Marcus became the principal of Largo High School.  Beginning in the fall of 2007, Principal Simpson-Marcus told Mr. Everhart that she would fire him and take away his teaching certificate as “payback” for a time when white principals mistreated black teachers.  Principal Simpson-Marcus called Mr. Everhart “poor white trash” and “white bitch” to his face and made similar comments about Mr. Everhart in the presence of  his students.  Principal Simpson-Marcus told Mr. Everhart that he needed to transfer to a white suburban school, which she referred to as “Whiteville”.  Mr. Everhart observed Principal Simpson-Marcus harassing other white teachers as well.

PGCPS would not allow Mr. Everhart to transfer to another school.  In 2009, Mr. Everhart became depressed and his blood pressure rose to dangerous levels.  Mr. Everhart complained about Principal Simpson-Marcus to anyone who would listen.  Principal Simpson-Marcus retaliates against African American teachers and staff who speak up on Mr. Everhart’s behalf with threats and racial and sexual name-calling, such as, “black bitch” and “black ass”.  The jury verdict also allowed two of these African American plaintiffs to go forward with their race discrimination lawsuits against Principal Simpson-Marcus.

Mr. Everhart, and other working on his behalf, complained verbally and in writing about Principal Simpson-Marcus’s racial harassment to school board officials, including former Superintendent William Hite.  Despite these complaints, PGCPS never conducted an investigation and never took corrective action against Principal Simpson-Marcus.  During his final two years, Principal Simpson-Marcus repeatedly wrote up Mr. Everhart and gave him negative job performance evaluations which lead to his termination in June 2010.

Title VI allows relief for employment discrimination when “providing employment is a primary objective of the federal aid”.  Venkatraman v. REI Systems, Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 421 (4th Cir. 2005); Trageser v. Libbie Rehabilitation Ctr., Inc., 590 F2d 87 (4th Cir. 1978) (“…employment is a primary objective of the federal aid”).  Title VI applies even if the plaintiff is not the ultimate beneficiary of federal financial assistance, such as, a student.

34 C.F.R. § 100.3(c) Employment practices states:

§ 100.3 Discrimination prohibited. (c) Employment practices. (1) Where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance to a program to which this regulation applies is to provide employment, a recipient may not (directly or through contractual or other arrangements) subject an individual to discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin in its employment practices under such program (including recruitment or recruitment advertising, employment, layoff or termination, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and use of facilities)…

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Public Law III-5, states in Section 3(a)(1) that the purpose of the Act  includes “To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.”  The Act states the following:

SEC. 3. PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES. (a) STATEMENT OF PURPOSES.

The purpose of this Act includes the following:

(1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.

Bryan A. Chapman, Esquire

www.baclaw.com

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 (4th 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: Prince George’s schools sued over alleged discrimination

Prince George’s schools sued over alleged discrimination by principal Angelique Simpson Marcus

By Michael Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 23, 2010; 6:23 PM

A group of current and former Prince George’s County school employees has filed a lawsuit against the school system, alleging that a principal engaged in systematic discrimination against white teachers and the African American teachers and staffers who came to their defense.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt on Monday, alleges that Angelique Simpson Marcus, the principal of Largo High School, has targeted white teachers because of their race, and the African American teachers and employees who stood up for them, since she became principal in 2007. The lawsuit alleges a pattern of name-calling, derogatory language and attempts to transfer or fire employees who displeased her.

Simpson Marcus referred comments to a spokesman for the Prince George’s County schools Tuesday. The spokesman, Darrell Pressley, said, “We have not been served with a complaint, therefore we’re not in a position to provide any substantive comment at this time.”

Filing the lawsuit were two white teachers and eight African American staff members, among them teachers, secretaries and a guidance counselor. Two of them are still at the school. The others were laid off or transferred to other schools. Two other teachers joined the lawsuit but do not teach at Largo High School.

The lawsuit alleges that Simpson Marcus made derogatory statements about one white teacher, Jon Everhart, based on his race, and that she criticized and harassed both him and another white teacher, Sally Rogers, and assigned them to teach remedial courses that were not their specialty. The principal told students and parents that the teachers were bad and that they would pass the class regardless of the grade given by the teacher, the suit alleges. Rogers remains at the school as a Latin teacher. Everhart, 61, was fired based on unsatisfactory evaluations in August.

“To my face she said that the only reason that a white person gets a job in Largo is because they couldn’t get a job somewhere else,” Everhart said Tuesday. He said he lost his teaching certificate and his pension, was evicted from his apartment and is now substitute teaching in Ohio. “She told me that ‘by the time I’m done with you, you won’t be able to get a job anywhere,’ ” he said.

The lawsuit alleges that Simpson Marcus also targeted African American teachers, secretaries and a guidance counselor who advocated on behalf of the white teachers. Secretaries were subjected to a variety of crude sexual insults, the suit alleges. Other teachers and the guidance counselor were insulted based on their age and physical condition, the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit also names the Prince George’s teachers union. The staff members allege that the union employee in charge of defending them against discrimination, Jimalatice Thomas-Gilbert, refused to give several of them the forms to file grievances. They also say she was attempting to recruit the principal to join a home-based direct-selling network that would have benefited Thomas-Gilbert financially.

Neither Thomas-Gilbert nor Donald Briscoe, the head of the teachers union, responded to e-mails and phone calls Tuesday.

%d bloggers like this: