Los Angeles racial discrimination

When it comes to employment discrimination, there is rarely a single incident by one person that can be pointed to as proof positive evidence of wrongdoing. More often than not, discriminatory actions are the result of a workplace culture where microaggressions, snarky comments or bigoted attitudes are excused – if not encouraged – time and again. This is also why there so often is more than one victim, even if they are affected in different ways.

Recently, the former “head coach” of a Nike store in Santa Monica accused of racially profiling Black shoppers is now also accused of harassing and discriminating against the store’s Black employees. That’s according to a Los Angeles employment discrimination lawsuit filed last month.

According to the filing, as published by Bloomberg Law, two former employees at the Southern California store say that Nike and its former store manager are legally liable for racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation and more. They say the manager created a work environment that was not only pervasively hostile, but abusive. Many employees of color felt they had no choice but to resign. Most of those employees who quit were soon after replaced with White female workers. Continue Reading ›

One of the most significant changes in federal racial discrimination cases came with the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owed Media, et al. News of this precedent was largely eclipsed by the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S., but the impact will be significant in future racial discrimination employment lawsuits.

For those who may not be familiar, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 of the Civil Rights Act bars race discrimination that is intentional in all forms of contracting. That includes employment. The conflict among lower courts in deciding these cases was whether a plaintiff needed to prove that race discrimination was just one motivating factor among several for the adverse employment action, or whether plaintiff needed to show that race was the “but for” cause. With a “but for” standard, plaintiffs need to prove the adverse outcome wouldn’t have happened “but for” the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November 2019 and issued their decision in March 2020. They held that plaintiffs in Section 1981 cases must meet the “but for” causation standard. Continue Reading ›

Articles Tagged with Los Angeles racial discrimination

Workplace Racial Discrimination Alleged at Same Retailer Accused of Bias Against Black Customers

Racial Discrimination Must Be “But For” Cause in Section 1981 Civil Rights Law Claims