Articles Tagged with racial discrimination lawyer

Unlawful gender and racial bias against women and Asians in the hiring process at Google will cost the company $2.6 million. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Labor is requiring the tech giant to review its practices for hiring and pay, fund an independent study on is own gender pay equity and provide the government routine updates on its efforts to reduce gender pay equity.employment attorney

The lawsuit came about as part of a federal government contractor audit of numerous Google sites in California, Washington state and New York. That analysis revealed numerous indicators that the company was not in compliance with an executive order that prohibits discrimination in federal contractor hiring and wages.

The analysis indicated that over a three-year span starting in 2014, the company paid female engineers in numerous offices (including in California) substantially less than male engineers for the same jobs. Further, evidence indicated the company discriminated against women and Asian applicants applying to be engineers at several California sites. 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. racial discrimination lawyer

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 ›

A worker alleging his employer violated federal civil rights law by retaliating against him for filing a racial discrimination complaint will get another shot at taking his claim to court.factory manager

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a trial court’s dismissal of his original complaint.

According to court records, plaintiff is an African American man who first started working for the company, a machinery manufacturing firm based in Texas, in 1991. He started his job as a “helper,” but was eventually promoted to machinist. During his tenure at the company, he was laid off three times due to staff reductions, but each time was hired back. Eventually, he racked up a full decade of seniority. By all accounts, he performed his job in a manner his employer deemed satisfactory, he regularly received raises on merit and he’d never been disciplined – until May 2009, when he was 55-years-old.  Continue Reading ›

Minority workers face the highest rates of on-the-job injury, and researchers with the University of Southern California opine that’s in large part due to workplace discrimination. constructionworker

The study looked at injury rates among workers of different races. What they discovered was that Latino immigrant and African American men had far and away the greatest risk of injury. The risk was even higher when researchers accounted for education and other demographic characteristics. 

Although the study authors didn’t delve too deeply into the reasons why, the lead researcher opined it had largely to do with “disparities in economic opportunities for minorities.” In other words: Racial discrimination. Workers who are black or Latino immigrant are often turned down or not considered for higher-paying roles, and therefore are pigeon-holed into jobs that are more dangerous, substantially increasing their risk of workplace injury and disability.  Continue Reading ›

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has a reputation for leaning pro-employer in work-related disputes. So the recent decision in Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises came as a bit of a surprise – and its effects could be far-reaching. gavel7

The case upends the standard that the circuit has followed the last 20 years for determining discrimination in the workplace. Prior to this case, the court had held an employee plaintiff could prove discrimination in just one of two ways:

  • Direct. That means providing the court with some type of direct evidence of discrimination.
  • Indirect. This is providing the court with circumstantial evidence of discrimination, such as a pattern of actions (or as it sometimes called, a “convincing mosaic”).

Each method requires a series of tests, and the Seventh Circuit noted frustration with the legal wrangling that had to be done just to properly navigate these tests. This “convincing mosaic” as a legal standard was so confusing, the court wrote, that justices vowed any ruling based on that phrase is going to be subject to summary reversal.  Continue Reading ›

The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down an important decision that will almost certainly aid victims of workplace discrimination in their efforts to attain restitution. postalservice

In Green v. Brennan, what was alleged was a case of severe and long-running racial discrimination against a black mail carrier for the U.S. Postal Service.

Plaintiff was a 35-year- veteran of the Postal Service when the trouble first started. A job for postmaster opened in Colorado. Plaintiff applied, but his bosses passed him over – for someone far less qualified. It was later revealed the person who landed the job hadn’t even turned in an application.

Contact Information