race discrimination case study

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• initiatives

Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases(Covering Private and Federal Sectors)

In enforcing Title VII's prohibition of race and color discrimination, the EEOC has filed, resolved, and adjudicated a number of cases since 1964. Under the E-RACE Initiative, the Commission continues to be focused on the eradication of race and color discrimination from the 21st century workplace and is seeking to retool its enforcement efforts to address contemporary forms of overt, subtle and implicit bias. Below is an inexhaustive list of significant EEOC private or federal sector cases from 2003 to present. These cases illustrate some of the common, novel, systemic and emerging issues in the realm of race and color discrimination.

Youth@ Work

• Customer Preference

Hispanic/Foreign Preference

Job segregation, terms and conditions, compensation disparity, hostile work environment, retaliation, color discrimination, reverse discrimination, same race discrimination, intersectional discrimination/harassment, associational discrimination, biracial discrimination, e-race and other eeoc initiatives.

• In March 2020,  Porous Materials, a manufacturer in Ithaca, NY, must pay $93,000 in monetary relief and report any future harassment allegations directly to the EEOC to settle claims that it engaged in pervasive harassment based on race, sex and national origin, according to a recent EEOC lawsuit.  The extreme bullying and harassment allegedly included a manager using racial slurs toward his employees, calling foreign workers “terrorists,” telling immigrants to leave America, and making unwanted sexual advances toward female employees.  The EEOC further claims the owner of Porous Materials did nothing to put a stop to the harassment.   EEOC v. Porous Materials, Inc. , Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-01099 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2020).
• In March 2020,  Prewett Enterprises, Inc., doing business as B&P Enterprises, and Desoto Marine, LLC, rail services and disaster response companies, paid $250,000 and furnished other relief to settle a race harassment case brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Prewett and Desoto supervisors and managers subjected African American employees to daily harassment and humiliation because of their race by calling them racially offensive and derogatory names and assigned Black employees the more dangerous job duties. Under the two-year consent decree, the businesses will revise their anti-racial harassment policies; create an 800-hotline number for employees to report complaints about discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and conduct exit interviews of employees who leave the company. The decree also mandates training of employees and the reporting of any future complaints of race harassment to the EEOC. EEOC v. Prewett Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a B&P Enterprises, and Desoto Marine,LLC , Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-213 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 18, 2020).
• In January 2020, Jacksonville Plumbers and Pipefitters Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust (JPPJATT), which sponsors an apprenticeship program that trains participants to work in the plumbing and pipefitting industries in Northern Florida, revised its selection process, paid $207,500 and provided other significant equitable relief to settle EEOC’s class race discrimination lawsuit which sought relief for applicants who allegedly were denied apprentice­ship positions because they were Black. In addition to the monetary relief, the four-year consent decree provides for extensive injunctive relief to help secure a diverse workforce; requires JPPJATT to  hire a consultant to review and revise its selection process and implement and train employees in the new process; enjoins JPPJATT from discriminating against Black applicants on the basis of race in the future; and requires the company to hold information sessions at locations in the Black community. EEOC v. Jacksonville Plumbers and Pipefitters Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust , Case No. 3:18-cv-862-J-32JRK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 2020).
• In January 2020, Falcon Foundry Company agreed to resolve a racial harassment class case which was filed against it by the Youngstown Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the EEOC. The NAACP filed an EEOC charge on behalf of some employees and the EEOC's  investigation found that a top company official subjected employees to derogatory racial comments and that there was a noose hanging in the facility. The EEOC also found that Black and Hispanic employees were disciplined for violating company policies while Caucasian employees who violated the same policies were not disciplined. On these bases, the EEOC found that a class of individuals were harassed and discriminated against because of their race, Black; their national origin, Hispanic; or their association with a Black or Hispanic employee in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The company conducted an internal investigation, trained its employees, and terminated the company official to address the claims filed against it. Additionally, the EEOC, the NAACP and Falcon Foundry signed a conciliation agreement that requires Falcon Foundry to pay substantial monetary relief to identified victims; hold managers and supervisors accountable for discrimination in the workplace and provide ongoing training to all employees; revise its policies and procedures for dealing with discrimination; and report to the EEOC for the agreement's multi-year term.
• In November 2019, Janitorial Service Provider Diversified Maintenance Systems, LLC paid $750,000 and furnished significant equitable relief to settle a federal race discrimination, harassment and retaliation lawsuit.  The complaint alleged that since at least January, 2012, Diversified engaged in an ongoing pattern or practice of race discrimination against African-American job applicants in Maryland, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia metropolitan areas by refusing to hire Black applicants for custodian, lead custodian or porter positions and racially harassing a Black janitorial supervisor in the presence of customers and employees.  The lawsuit also alleged that when he complained, the company demoted the Black supervisor, changed his work assignments, hours, and conditions and then fired him. The 30-month consent decree enjoins Diversified from discriminating against or harassing anyone based on race or engaging in retaliation and requires the company to designate an internal monitor to ensure compliance with the consent decree. Additionally, Diversified must implement a targeted hiring plan that  tracks the number and race of applicants, and reason(s) why they are not hired. It also must create a policy to prohibit harassment and retaliation and provide training on preventing discrimination, harassment and retaliation. EEOC v. Diversified Maintenance Systems, LLC ., Case No. 8:17-cv-01835 (D. Md. settlement announced Nov. 25, 2019).
• In November 2019, a federal judge approved  the settlement of the 2013 EEOC lawsuit challenging the way a discount retailer conducted criminal background checks of job applicants because the process allegedly discriminated against Black workers with criminal histories. In addition to paying $6 million, the company agreed to hire a criminologist to develop a new background check process that accounts for job applicants’ actual risk of recidivism.  EEOC v. Dolgencorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General ,  Civil Action No. 13 C 4307 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2019).
• In November 2019, a federal judge approved a $1.2 million settlement resolving the EEOC’s racial harassment suit against Nabors Corporate Services Inc. and another Houston-based oil field services company. Nine Black employees and a White co-worker received payments. The EEOC lawsuit alleged that Black employees assigned to fracking and coiled tubing oilfield service operations in Pleasanton, Texas, were subjected to a hostile work environment based on race since at least 2012 and that Nabors and C&J Well Services Inc. retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment. Although they deny the allegations, the companies also agreed to provide the affected workers with neutral employment references; maintain social media and information policies that prohibit the use of email, software, or hardware or any company-owned devices to be used for racially offensive communications or similar misconduct; and maintain procedures that encourage workers to come forward with race bias complaints.    EEOC v. Nabors Indus., Ltd. No. 5:16-cv-00758 (W.D. Tex. consent decree approved Nov. 12, 2019).
• In October 2019, Breakthru Beverage Illinois, LLC (BBI), a distributor of alcoholic beverages, agreed to pay $950,000 to resolve an investigation of race and national origin discrimination conducted by the EEOC. Based on its investigation, the EEOC had found reasonable cause to believe that BBI discriminated against Illinois sales employees by offering them account and territory assignments that, when accepted, resulted in national origin or race discrimination, which violates Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964.  Pursuant to this settlement, BBI will The settlement provides monetary relief to the class identified by the EEOC and ensures the company will take proactive measures to prevent such discrimination from occurring in the future. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, BBI also will conduct anti-discrimination training for its Illinois sales force; put in place systems to further encourage diverse applicants for open positions; revise its anti-discrimination policy to expressly reference that it prohibits segregating or making assignments based on race and/or national origin and distribute the revised policy to its Illinois sales force; hire a monitor to track the demographics of employees applying for and receiving offers for specified Illinois sales positions;  provide periodic reporting on the demographics of its Illinois sales force for the next two years; and post an internal notification to its Illinois employees of this resolution.
• In February 2019, the Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, IAFF agreed to pay $4.9 million to settle a race discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC's 2012 lawsuit against the union alleged that the union advocated for an unlawful promotional process that had a disparate impact on African-American promotional candidates even after it learned that the EEOC had received charges challenging the city’s promotion practices. EEOC v. Jacksonville Association of Firefighters, Local 122 , IAFF , No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2019).
• In December 2017, Laquila Group Inc., a Brooklyn-based construction company, paid $625,000 into a class settlement fund and took measures to eliminate race bias and retaliation against black construction laborers. In its lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Laquila engaged in systemic discrimination against black employees as a class by subjecting them to racial harassment, including referring to them using the N-word, "gorilla," and similar epithets. The Commission also alleged that the company fired an employee who complained about the harassment. The consent decree also requires Laquila to set up a hotline for employees to report illegal discrimination, provide anti-discrimination training to its managers, adopt revised anti-discrimination policies and employee complaint procedures and report all worker harassment and retaliation complaints to the EEOC for the 42-month duration of the agreement. EEOC v. The Laquila Grp., Inc. , No. 1:16-cv-05194 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree approved Dec. 1, 2017).
• In November 2017, after an extensive five-year, complicated systemic investigation and settlement efforts, the EEOC reached an agreement with Lone Star Community College covering recruitment, hiring and mentoring of African-American and Hispanic applicants and employees. The terms of the agreement were designed to enhance the College's commitment to the recruitment of African-American and Hispanics and to engage in meaningful monitoring of the College's efforts to reach its recruitment and hiring goals. The agreement included some novel relief, such as: implementation of a new applicant tracking system; establishing an advisory committee focused on the recruitment, development and retention of minority groups; hiring of recruitment firms; developing new interview protocol training; establishing a mentoring program for recently hired minority employees; and updating job descriptions for all college manager positions to require as a job component the diversity of its workforce.
• In August 2017, Ford Motor Company agreed to pay nearly $10.125 million to settle sex and race harassment investigation by the EEOC at two Ford plants in Chicago area. In its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that personnel at two Ford facilities in the Chicago area, the Chicago Assembly Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant, had subjected female and African-American employees to sexual and racial harassment. The EEOC also found that the company retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment or discrimination. In addition to the monetary relief, the conciliation agreement provides ensures that during the next five years, Ford will conduct regular training at the two Chicago-area facilities; continue to disseminate its anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and procedures to employees and new hires; report to EEOC regarding complaints of harassment and/or related discrimination; and monitor its workforce regarding issues of alleged sexual or racial harassment and related discrimination.
• In July 2017, Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC agreed, without admitting wrongdoing, to pay $10.5 million to a class of African-American and Hispanic workers the EEOC alleged it discriminated against by failing to hire because of their race and/or national origin in violation of Title VII. According to the consent decree, Bass Pro will engage in good faith efforts to increase diversity by reaching out to minority colleges and technical schools, participating in job fairs in communities with large minority populations and post job openings in publications popular among Black and Hispanic communities. Additionally, every six months for the next 42 months, Bass Pro is to report to the EEOC its hiring rates on a store-by-store basis. EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC , Case No. 4:11-cv-03425 (S.D. Tex. consent decree filed July 24, 2017).
• In June 2017, the EEOC investigated a restaurant operating over 100 facilities in the Eastern U.S. involving issues of hiring discrimination against African Americans. The restaurant agreed to pay $9.6 million to class members as part of a conciliation agreement. Additionally, the restaurant will overhaul its hiring procedures and has agreed to institute practices aimed at meeting hiring targets consistent with the labor market in each of the locations in which it has facilities. The new hiring procedures include implementation of an extensive applicant tracking system that will better enable the EEOC and the company to assess whether the company is meeting the targeted hiring levels. The restaurant will also provide an annual report to EEOC detailing the company's efforts in complying with the agreement and its objectives over the term of the five-year agreement, including detailed hiring assessments for each facility covered by the agreement.
• In May 2017, Rosebud Restaurants agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against 13 restaurants in the Chicago area. The chain was charged with refusing to hire African-American applicants and having managers who used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans. The monetary award will be paid to African-American applicants who were denied jobs. Pursuant to a consent decree, the chain also agreed to hiring goals with the aim of having 11 percent of its future workforce be African American. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination. EEOC v. Rosebud Rest ., No. 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).
• In April 2017, Sealy of Minnesota paid $175,000 to resolve a charge of racial harassment filed with the EEOC. An investigation by the EEOC's Minneapolis Area Office revealed that the mattress and box spring manufacturing company in St. Paul, Minn. subjected its Black and Hispanic employees to severe racial harassment in the form of KKK hoods, nooses, and racial slurs and jokes. The agency also found that the company discriminated against black and Hispanic employees in the selection of lead positions at the St. Paul facility. EEOC v. Sealy of Minn ., (D. Minn. Apr. 20, 2017).
• In December 2016, Crothall Services Group, Inc., a nationwide provider of janitorial and facilities management services, settled an EEOC lawsuit by adopting significant changes to its record-keeping practices related to the use of criminal background checks. According to the EEOC's complaint, Crothall used criminal background checks to make hiring decisions without making and keeping required records that disclose the impact criminal history assessments have on persons identifiable by race, sex, or ethnic group, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. EEOC v. Crothall Servs. Group, Inc ., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03812-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016).
• In August 2016, a magistrate judge reaffirmed that "African" has long been recognized as an acceptable class entitled to protection under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that the Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. The EEOC brought disparate impact and treatment claims based on race and national origin, and a retaliation claim for a white supervisor who stood up for the African workers and was fired several months before the test was instituted. Defendants moved for dismissal arguing (1) Africa is not a nation and so cannot serve as the basis of a national origin claim, (2) EEOC failed to allege any shared cultural or linguistic characteristics between the aggrieved individuals so they could not constitute a protected class; and (3) the EEOC's retaliation claim must be dismissed because EEOC failed to allege protected activity or the Defendants had knowledge of the white supervisor's motivations. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied in total. EEOC v. Columbine Health Sys. & New Mercer Commons , Civ. Action No. 15-cv-01597-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2016).
• In June 2016, the EEOC obtained a $350,000 settlement in its race discrimination lawsuit against defendant FAPS, Inc., a company located at Port Newark, N.J., involved in the processing for final sale of shipped automobiles. In this case, the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American available workforce in the Newark area. The agency further alleged that FAPS refused to hire qualified African-American candidates, including by telling them that no positions were available when in fact FAPS was hiring. Finally, the EEOC alleged that FAPS' employment application contained improper pre-employment medical inquiries in violation of the ADA. Besides the monetary compensation, the five year consent decree requires FAPS to meet substantial hiring goals for African-Americans; give hiring priority to rejected class members who are interested in working at the company; use recruiting methods designed to increase the African-American applicant pool; and hire an EEO coordinator to ensure compliance with Title VII. EEOC v. FAPS, Inc ., C.A. No. No. 2:10-cv-03095 (D.N.J. June 15, 2016).
• In April 2015, Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and its associated apprenticeship school agreed to create a back pay fund for a group of minority sheet metal workers in partial settlement of race discrimination claims against the local union. Pursuant to the settlement, it is estimated that the union will pay approximately $12.7 million over the next five years and provide substantial remedial relief to partially resolve claims made against the union in 1991-2002. The trade union, which is responsible for sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey, allegedly discriminated against black and Hispanic journeypersons over a multi-year period in hiring and job assignments. An analysis of hours and wages showed African-American and Hispanic workers received fewer hours of work than their white co-workers during most of this same timeframe. This particular agreement covers from April 1991 through December 2002. EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n , Case No. 71 Civ. 2887 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2015).
• In December 2015, Hillshire Brands (formerly known as Sara Lee Corporation) agreed to pay $4 million to 74 workers at the now-shuttered Paris, Texas, plant, including the dozens of people who sought EEOC charges against Hillshire and other aggrieved workers identified by the EEOC and the plaintiffs. This resolution settles claims that the company subjected a class of Black employees to a hostile work environment that included racist graffiti and comments, that included the N-word and "boy." The company also agreed to implement training at all of its plants in a bid to end consolidated suits from the EEOC and former worker Stanley Beaty. The consent decree also requires Hillshire to implement anti-racism training and create a mechanism for employees at its existing plants to confidentially report instances of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The settlement also requires Hillshire to designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in racial bias or behavior related to it. EEOC v. Hillshire Brands Co. f/k/a Sara Lee Corp ., No. 2:15-cv-01347 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15) and Beaty et al v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al. , No. 2:14-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15).
• In October 2015, a federal judge held that the operators of an Indianapolis Hampton Inn in contempt for failing to comply with five different conditions settling the EEOC's class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the companies. The judge faulted Noble Management LLC and New Indianapolis Hotels for failing to: (1) properly post notices; (2) properly train management employees; (3) keep employment records; (4) institute a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees; and (5) reinstate three former housekeeping employees. The judge also faulted Noble and New Indianapolis Hotels for comingling of medical records in employee personnel files. As background, the EEOC filed suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race discrimination. The agency also charged that the hotel paid lower wages to Black housekeepers, excluded Black housekeeping applicants on a systemic basis, and failed to maintain records required by law in violation of Title VII. In September 2012, the judge entered a five-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's litigation against the hotel operators. The decree provided $355,000 in monetary relief to approximately 75 African-American former housekeeping employees and applicants and required training, notice posting, reinstatement of three former housekeeping employees, a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees and ordered that the defendants maintain employment-related records. The court also enjoined the operators from race discrimination and retaliation in the future. In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. Defendants were also ordered to: (1) provide monthly reporting to the EEOC on compliance with the new hiring procedure, recordkeeping and posting; (2) pay fines for late reporting; (3) allow random inspections by the EEOC subject to a fine, for failure to grant access; (4) pay fines for failure to post, destroying records or failing to distribute employment applications; (5) provide EEOC with any requested employment records within 15 days of a request; (6) cease comingling medical records; and (7) train management employees. The posting and training provisions of the Decree were also extended by two years. In November 2015, the judge awarded $50,515 in fees and $6,733.76 in costs to the EEOC because the "Defendants willfully violated the explicit terms of the Consent Decree and repeatedly failed to comply with it [.]" EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC , C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01234-WTL-DKL (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2015) (fee ruling).
• In September 2015, BMW Manufacturing Co. settled for $1.6 million and other relief an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company's criminal background check policy disproportionately affects black logistics workers at a South Carolina plant. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that after learning the results of the criminal background checks around July 2008, BMW denied plant access to 88 logistics employees, resulting in their termination from the previous logistics provider and denial of hire by the new logistics services provider for work at BMW. Of those 88 employees, 70 were Black. Some of the logistics employees had been employed at BMW for several years, working for the various logistics services providers utilized by BMW since the opening of the plant in 1994. Under the terms of a consent decree signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the $1.6 million will be shared by 56 known claimants and other black applicants the EEOC said were shut out of BMW's Spartanburg, S.C., plant when the company switched to a new logistics contractor. In addition to the monetary relief, the company will provide each claimant who wishes to return to the facility an opportunity to apply for a logistics position. BMW will also notify other applicants who have previously expressed interest in a logistics position at the facility of their right to apply for work, the decree states. BMW has implemented a new criminal background check policy and will continue to operate under that policy throughout the three-year term of the decree. The company is expressly enjoined from "utilizing the criminal background check guidelines" challenged by the EEOC in its lawsuit, the decree states. The agreement also imposes on BMW notice-posting, training, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co ., No. 7:13-cv-01583 (D.S.C. consent decree filed Sep. 8, 2015).
• In August 2015, Target Corp. settled for $2.8 million an EEOC charge that the retailer's former tests for hiring for professional jobs discriminated against applicants based on race, sex and disability. Three assessments used by Target disproportionately screened out female and racial minority applicants, and a separate psychological assessment was a pre-employment medical examination that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had charged. Target also violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to maintain the records sufficient to gauge the impact of its hiring procedures. Under the three-year conciliation agreement, reached before any lawsuit was filed, Target has discontinued the use of the tests and made changes to its applicant tracking system, the EEOC said. About 4,500 unsuccessful applicants affected by the alleged discriminatory tests now are eligible to file claims for monetary relief.
• In March 2015, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling company agreed to settle for $12.26 million the EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide. According to a complaint filed by the EEOC the same day as the proposed decree, Patterson-UTI had engaged in patterns or practices of hostile work environment harassment, disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation against Hispanic, Latino, Black, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander and other minority workers at its facilities in Colorado and other states. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and report on the company's compliance with certain training, management evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co. , No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015).
• In January 2015, Skanska USA Building, Inc., a building contractor headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., paid $95,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. Skanska served as the general contractor on the Methodist Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, where the incidents in this lawsuit took place. The class of Black employees worked for C-1, Inc. Construction Company, a minority-owned subcontractor for Skanska. Skanska awarded a subcontract to C-1 to provide buck hoist operations for the construction site and thereafter supervised all C-1 employees while at the work site. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially offensive comments and physical assault. EEOC v. Shanska USA Building, Inc. , No. 2:10-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015).
• In December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the staffing firms had discriminated against four Black temporary employees and a class of Black and non-Hispanic job applicants by failing to place or refer them for employment. The four temporary employees said while seeking employment through the company's Memphis area facilities, they witnessed Hispanic applicants getting preferential treatment in hiring and placement. EEOC v. New Koosharem Corp. , No. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. Tenn. consent decree filed Dec. 5, 2014).
• In December 2014, three related well-servicing companies agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of verbal abuse of minority employees. The EEOC complaint alleged that J&R employees regularly used racial slurs to refer to Black, Hispanic and Native American employees. Employees of these racial groups on company rigs regularly heard racist terms and demeaning remarks about green cards and deportation, the EEOC complaint said. Several individuals complained to management, but their complaints were minimized or ignored, the complaint alleged. For example, an area supervisor responded to employee complaints by telling the complainants they could quit or by saying that he was sick of everyone coming to him and that everyone simply needed to do their jobs. In addition, the complaint stated that several men were demoted or fired after taking their complaints of discrimination to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services' Labor Standards Division. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp. , No. 13-cv-00198 (D. Wyo. consent decree filed Dec. 1, 2014).
• In November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. Under a three-year consent decree signed Nov. 10 by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, ACM Services Inc. will pay a combined $110,000 to the two Hispanic female workers who first brought the allegations to the EEOC's attention and will establish a class fund of $305,000 for other potential claimants to be identified by the agency. According to the EEOC, the company has relied exclusively on "word-of-mouth recruitment practices" for field laborer positions, with the intent and effect of restricting the recruitment of Black and female applicants. ACM also subjected the two charging parties to harassment based on sex, national origin and race, and it retaliated against them for opposing the mistreatment-and against one of them based on her association with Black people-by firing them, the commission alleged. The agreement applies to all ACM facilities and locations nationwide and has extra-territorial application to the extent permitted by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the decree requires the company to set numerical hiring goals for its field laborer positions, recruit Black and female applicants via print and Internet advertisements and report to the EEOC regarding its attainment of the numerical hiring goals and other settlement terms. EEOC v. ACM Servs., Inc. , No. 8:14-cv-02997 (D. Md. consent decree filed Nov. 10, 2014).
• In November 2014, Battaglia Distributing Corporation paid $735,000 to a group of current and former African-American employees. In this case, the EEOC alleged that the Battaglia tolerated an egregious race-based hostile work environment, requiring African-American dock workers to endure harassment that included racial slurs (including the "N" word). Among other relief provided under the decree, Battaglia also will provide its managers with training on Title VII and report regularly to the EEOC on any complaints it has received, as well as provide other data to demonstrate that it has not retaliated against any of the participants in the litigation. EEOC v. Battaglia Distrib. Corp. , No. 13-cv-5789 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 10, 2014).
• In October 2014, Prestige Transportation Service L.L.C., a Miami company that provides transportation services to airline personnel to and from Miami International Airport, paid $200,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, in connection with actions allegedly committed under different ownership. The EEOC charged in its suit that Prestige's predecessor company, Airbus Alliance Inc., repeatedly instructed its human resource manager to not hire African-American applicants because they were "trouble" and "would sue the company." EEOC v. Prestige Transp. Service L.L.C. , No. 1:13-cv-20684(JEM) (S.D. Fla. consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2014).
• In September 2014, McCormick & Schmick's settled a 2008 EEOC lawsuit, alleging a pattern or practice of race discrimination against African-American job applicants by refusing to hire them for front-of-the-house positions and by denying equal work assignments because of their race. The consent decree established a claims fund of $1.3 million and provides substantial injunctive relief, including goals for hiring of Black job applicants for front-of-the-house positions, targeted recruitment efforts, and extensive self-assessment of hiring and work assignment practices to ensure non-discrimination and compliance with the terms of the consent decree. McCormick & Schmick's also must designate an outside monitor to oversee compliance with the consent decree and submit reports to the EEOC. EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. and McCormick and Schmick Restaurant Corporation , No. WMN-09-cv-984 (D. Md. Sep. 12, 2014).
• In September 2013, U-Haul agreed to pay $750,000 to eight African-American current and former employees and to provide other relief to settle a race and retaliation discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Black employees were subjected to racial slurs and other racially offensive comments by their White supervisor, at U-Haul's Memphis facility. The EEOC's complaint charged that the supervisor regularly referred to Black employees with the "N" word and other derogatory slurs. The suit further alleged that the company engaged in retaliation by firing one employee when he complained of racial harassment to the company president. Under the two-year consent decree, U-Haul Company of Tennessee must maintain an anti-discrimination policy prohibiting race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation, and provide mandatory training to all employees regarding the policy. Additionally, the marketing company president will receive training on race discrimination and on obligations to report race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation. Finally, the company will provide written reports to the EEOC regarding any race discrimination or racial harassment complaints by employees. EEOC v. U-Haul Co. Int'l & U-Haul Co. of Tenn. , No. 2:11-cv-02844 (W.D. Tenn. Sep. 25, 2013).
• In September 2013, a Kentucky coal mining company paid $245,000 to 19 total applicants and amend its hiring practices to settle a racial discrimination suit brought by the EEOC. River View Coal LLC, a unit of Alliance Resource Partners LP, also will have to regularly report to the EEOC on its hiring practices for two years to escape the suit, which alleged that the company refused to hire a class of African-American applicants for coal mining jobs at its Waverly, Ky., location since 2008. The consent decree also requires River View to refrain from any future racial discrimination in its hiring procedures. EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC , No. 4:11-cv-00117(JHM)(HBB) (W.D. Ky. Sep. 26, 2013).
• In December 2012, a South Dallas, TX mill agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of 14 Black employees to settle an EEOC race discrimination suit alleging that the mill exposed Black employees to violent, racist graffiti and racial slurs by co-workers, such as "KKK," swastikas, Confederate flags, "white power" and other racist terms, including "die, n----r, die," as well as the display of nooses at an employee workstation. Black employees alleged that the supervisors allowed the behavior to continue unchecked. The consent decree permanently enjoins the company from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and requires the company to enact a graffiti abatement policy and undergo annual reviews of its compliance for two years EEOC v. Rock-Tenn Services Co. , No. 3:10-cv-01960 (N.D. Tex. filed Sep. 29, 2012).
• In November 2012, a federal court ordered Caldwell Freight Lines, a now defunct company, to pay $120,000 to settle a race discrimination complaint stemming from its alleged refusal to hire Black applicants to work on its loading dock even though it is no longer in business. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, 51 African American applicants sought work with Caldwell Freight and none was hired even though many had previous dock experience and were qualified for the positions. An EEOC investigation revealed that the company hired no Black dock workers during the period studied and that one high-level manager allegedly said he "didn't want any [B]lacks on the dock." Under the terms of the consent decree, if the company resumes operations, it will have to implement an anti-discrimination policy and report to the EEOC all discrimination complaints and information regarding its hiring practices during the term of the decree. EEOC v. Caldwell Freight Lines, Case No. 5:11CV00134 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2012).
• In October 2012, a federal district court in Texas ordered AA Foundries Inc. to take specific measures to prevent racial harassment of Black employees at its San Antonio plant following a $200,000 jury verdict finding the company liable for race discrimination under Title VII. According to the EEOC, evidence at trial indicated that a White supervisor used "the N word" in reference to Black employees, called male Black employees "motherfucking boys," posted racially tinged materials in an employee break room, and accused Black employees of "always stealing and wanting welfare." After several employees filed racial harassment charges with the EEOC, a noose was displayed in the workplace. When some employees complained, the supervisor allegedly replied the noose was "no big deal" and that workers who complained were "too sensitive." Additionally, at trial, he also admitted it did not bother him to hear racially derogatory language in the workplace. In a judgment entered Oct. 9, the district court upheld the jury verdict that AA Foundries must pay punitive damages of $100,000 to former employee Christopher Strickland, $60,000 to former employee Leroy Beal, and $40,000 to former employee Kenneth Bacon. Because trial evidence also showed that AA Foundries lacked effective internal procedures to handle discrimination complaints, it must conduct at least one hour of equal employment opportunity training for all employees within 60 days of the court's Oct. 9 order. The company must distribute copies of its revised written anti-harassment policy to all current and future employees and post the policy in the break room of its San Antonio manufacturing facility. Every employee shall be notified of the procedure for initiating racial harassment or other bias complaints, including notice of their right to file EEOC charges if the company does not resolve their complaint. EEOC v. AA Foundries Inc. , No. 11-792 (W.D. Tex. judgment and injunction entered Oct. 9, 2012).
• In September 2012, two California-based trucking firms agreed to settle for $630,000 an EEOC lawsuit alleging one company violated Title VII by permitting the harassment of African American, Latino, and East Indian workers and by otherwise discriminating based on race, national origin, and religion. In its original complaint, EEOC alleged that since at least 2003, management officials and employees at Scully Distribution referred to Black drivers as "niggers," East Indian drivers as "Taliban" and "camel jockeys," and a Latino manager as a "spic." EEOC also charged Scully gave non-White drivers less favorable job assignments than their White counterparts. EEOC claimed Scully also fired one of the three employees who filed EEOC charges complaining about the alleged harassment in retaliation for his protected activity. Scully denied all of EEOC's allegations, but it and its successor Ryder System Inc. agreed to resolve the suit. EEOC v. Scully Distribution Servs. Inc. , No. 11-cv-08090 (C.D. Cal. proposed consent decree filed Sep. 25, 2012).
• In August 2012, a Tampa, Fla.-based environmental services company agreed to settle a race discrimination and harassment case brought by the EEOC and eleven intervening plaintiffs for $2,750,000 and other relief. In the lawsuit, EEOC alleged that the harassment of African American employees included multiple displays of nooses, the repeated use of the "N-word," and physical threats. The EEOC also claimed that four White employees were harassed by their White co-workers because they associated with African-American employees. Two African-American employees also alleged they were fired because of their race and two White employees asserted they were fired for engaging in protected activity and in retaliation for associating with African-American employees. At summary judgment, the district court denied in part the company's motion, stating that the company ignored both the extreme symbolism of a noose and that a reasonable jury could conclude that the worksite had at least some racial tension given the other nooses, threats, and racial epithets that each African-American employee experienced, and that the noose was intended to intimidate all African-Americans. The court also found that a reasonable jury could decide that Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent or remedy the harassment since it did not distribute its written policy forbidding racial harassment to its employees, post it at the job-site, or train the employees about what constitutes harassment and how to report it. The court, however, determined that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims brought on behalf of the White employees because injury must be personal and thus a White employee cannot sue for harassment of African-American employees that the White employee happened to see. Lastly, intervening Plaintiff provided direct evidence that the supervisor who fired him did so because of his race (through the supervisor's comment that he could get rid of "that . . . nigger. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110149 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2011). Although the company denied liability for the harassment, the three-year consent decree enjoins the company from engaging in further retaliation, race discrimination, or racial harassment, including associational bias. The company also must revise its anti-discrimination policy; provide employee training on the revised policy; and develop a procedure for investigating complaints of race discrimination and harassment and evaluating supervisors' compliance with the revised anti-discrimination policy. EEOC v. WRS Infrastructure and Env't Inc. d/b/a WRS Compass , No. 1:09-cv-4272 (N.D. Ill. consent decree filed Aug. 23, 2012).
• In June 2012, Yellow Transportation Inc. and YRC Inc. agreed to settle for $11 million an EEOC suit alleging that the trucking companies permitted the racial harassment of Black employees at a now-closed Chicago Ridge, Ill., facility. The proposed consent decree would settle both EEOC's suit and a private suit filed in 2008 by 14 Black employees under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), which were consolidated for purposes of settlement. In its complaint, the EEOC claimed that Black employees at the Chicago Ridge facility, which closed in 2009, were subjected to multiple incidents of hangman's nooses and racist graffiti, comments, and cartoons. EEOC claimed that Yellow and YRC also subjected Black employees to harsher discipline and closer scrutiny than their White counterparts and gave Black employees more difficult and time-consuming work assignments. Although numerous Black employees complained about these conditions, Yellow and YRC failed to act to correct the problems, EEOC alleged. The court granted preliminary approval of a proposed consent decree, but it must grant final approval following a fairness hearing before the decree takes effect. EEOC v. Yellow Transp. Inc. , No. 09 CV 7693 (N.D. Ill. preliminary approval granted June 28, 2012).
• In January 2012, Pepsi Beverages Company, formerly known as Pepsi Bottling Group, agreed in a post-investigation conciliation to pay $3.13 million and provide training and job offers to victims of the former criminal background check policy to resolve an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination in hiring. "The EEOC's investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded Black applicants from permanent employment. Under Pepsi's former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense." Additionally, "Pepsi's former policy also denied employment to applicants from employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses. The use of arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not relevant for the job, because it can limit the employment opportunities of applicants or workers based on their race or ethnicity."
• In December 2011, a New York City retail-wholesale fish market agreed to pay $900,000 and institute anti-discrimination measures to settle an EEOC lawsuit charging it with creating a hostile work environment for Black and African male employees. The lawsuit alleged that management at the company's Brooklyn facility routinely subjected more than 30 Black and African male loaders and drivers to sexual and racial harassment and retaliated against employees who complained. The harassment was both physical and verbal and included offensive comments based on race and national origin such as "nigger" and "African bastard" as well as explicit sexual expressions. The Commission also alleged that the company engaged in retaliation against workers who joined in the complaint. In addition to the monetary relief, M. Slavin agreed to submit to 5 years of monitoring by the EEOC; retain an independent EEO coordinator to investigate complaints; conduct one-on-one training for the worst harassers; and provide annual training for all staff. EEOC v. M. Slavin & Sons Ltd ., No. 09-5330 (E.D.N.Y. filed consent decree 12/15/11).
• In December 2010, Roadway Express, a less-than-truckload motor carrier with terminals throughout North America, settled the claims of two lawsuits alleging racial harassment of Black employees and race discrimination in terms and conditions of employment at two Illinois facilities. The claims included: (1) awarding Black employees less favorable assignments (both terminals); (2) assigning them more difficult and demanding work (both terminals); (3) enforcing break times more stringently (Chicago Heights); (4) subjecting their work to heightened scrutiny (Chicago Heights); and (5) disciplining them for minor misconduct (both terminals). Roadway also assigned Chicago Heights employees to segregated work groups. The 5-year decree, which applies to Roadway and YRC, Roadway's identity after it merged with Yellow Transportation, includes $10 million in monetary relief, $8.5 million to be paid upon preliminary approval of the decree and the remainder in three subsequent installments due on or before November 1 of 2011, 2012, and 2013. In addition to prohibiting race discrimination and retaliation against Black employees at YRC's Chicago Heights facility, the decree also requires YRC to provide all Chicago Heights employees annual training on racial harassment and race discrimination and engage a Work Assignment Consultant and a Disciplinary Practice Consultant to assist it in reviewing and revising the company's work assignment and disciplinary policies and practices at the Chicago facility. EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc., and YRC, Inc. , Nos. 06-CV-4805 and 08-CV-5555 and Bandy v. Roadway Express, Inc., and YRC, Inc. , No. 10-CV-5304 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2010) .
• In October 2010, Austin Foam Plastics, Inc., (AFP) a producer and distributor of corrugated box and cushion packaging, agreed to pay $600,000 to resolve a number of racial and sexual harassment charges. In pertinent part, the EEOC alleged that Black employees at AFP were subjected to intimidation, ridicule, insults, racially offensive comments and jokes, and cartoons and images that denigrated African-Americans. White employees and managers regularly emailed racially derogatory jokes, cartoons, and other materials to coworkers, and posted racially offensive photographs on the bulletin board outside the human resources office. They also engaged in threatening and intimidating conduct toward Black employees, such as tampering with the brake lines and air hoses of one CP's truck. The 2-year consent decree also enjoins race and sex (male) discrimination under Title VII, as well as retaliation. Defendant will submit to EEOC an EEO policy that prohibits race and sex discrimination and retaliation. Defendant will file annual audit reports with the EEOC summarizing each complaint of race or sex (male) discrimination, or retaliation, it receives at its Pfluggerville, Texas location and its disposition. EEOC v. Austin Foam Plastics, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-00180 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2010) .
• In September 2010, a mineral company agreed to pay $440,000 and other relief to settle a class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. Allegedly, the company disciplined an African-American quality control supervisor for having facial hair and using a cell phone during work, while Caucasian employees were not reprimanded for similar conduct. In addition to management subjecting the Black supervisor to heightened and unfair scrutiny, the company moved his office to the basement, while White employees holding the same position were moved to higher floors. Other African-American employees were subjected to racial harassment, such as a White supervisor placing a hangman's noose on a piece of machinery. EEOC v. Mineral Met, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-02199 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2010) .
• In August 2010, the EEOC and the largest commercial roofing contractor in New York state settled for $1 million an EEOC suit alleging the company discriminated against a class of Black workers through verbal harassment, denials of promotion, and unfair work assignments. According to the lawsuit, EEOC alleged from at least 1993 to the present, a White foreman repeatedly used racial slurs toward Black workers, that the company assigned Black employees to the most difficult, dirty, and least desirable jobs, that the roofing contractor systematically excluded Black employees from promotion opportunities, and that the company retaliated against those who complained. Additionally, nooses were displayed and portable toilets featured racially offensive graffiti with swastikas and "KKK" references at the job sites, EEOC alleged. Although it admitted no wrongdoing and said that it settled the case for financial reasons, the company agreed to hire an equal employment opportunity coordinator to provide employee EEO training, monitor future race discrimination complaints, and file periodic reports with EEOC regarding hiring, layoffs, and promotions. EEOC v. Elmer W. Davis Inc., No. 07-CV-06434 (W.D.N.Y. consent decree filed Aug. 10, 2010) .
• In December 2009, a national grocery chain paid $8.9 million to resolve three lawsuits collectively alleging race, color, national origin and retaliation discrimination, affecting 168 former and current employees. According to the lawsuits, minority employees were repeatedly subjected to derogatory comments and graffiti. Blacks were termed "n-----s" and Hispanics termed "s---s;" offensive graffiti in the men's restroom, which included racial and ethnic slurs, depictions of lynchings, swastikas, and White supremacist and anti-immigrant statements, was so offensive that several employees would relieve themselves outside the building or go home at lunchtime rather than use the restroom. Black and Hispanic employees also were allegedly given harder work assignments and were more frequently and severely disciplined than their Caucasian co-workers. Lastly, EEOC asserted that dozens of employees complained about the discriminatory treatment and harassment and were subsequently given the harder job assignments, were passed over for promotion and even fired as retaliation. EEOC v. Albertsons LLC , Civil Action No. 06-cv-01273, No. 08-cv-00640, and No. 08-cv-02424 (D. Colo 2009).
• In May 2009, an Illinois construction company agreed to pay $630,000 to settle a class action race discrimination suit, alleging that it laid off Black employees after they had worked for the company for short periods of time, but retained White employees for long-term employment. The three-year consent decree also prohibits the company from engaging in future discrimination and retaliation; requires that it implement a policy against race discrimination and retaliation, as well as a procedure for handling complaints of race discrimination and retaliation; mandates that the company provide training to employees regarding race discrimination and retaliation; and requires the company to provide periodic reports to the EEOC regarding layoffs and complaints of discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v. Area Erectors, Inc. , No. 1:07-CV-02339 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2009).
• In August 2008, a tobacco retail chain agreed to pay $425,000 and provide significant remedial relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit on behalf of qualified Black workers who were denied promotion to management positions. The three-year consent decree also requires the company, which has stores in Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi, to train all managers and supervisors on preventing race discrimination and retaliation; create job descriptions for manager and assistant manager positions that outline the qualifications for each position; develop a written promotion policy that will include the procedures by which employees will be notified of promotional opportunities; report assistant manager and manager vacancies, the name and race of all applicants for the position, and the name of the successful candidate; report the names of all African Americans who are either hired or promoted to manager or assistant manager positions; and report any complaints of race discrimination and describe its investigation in response to the complaint. EEOC v. Tobacco Superstores, Inc. , No. 3:05 CV 00218 (E.D. Ark. settled Aug. 2008).
• In July 2008, a Chicago-based leading chemical manufacturer of high-quality surfactants, polymers, chemical specialties and cosmetic preservatives paid $175,000 to settle a class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the lawsuit, a class of African American employees had been subjected to race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation for complaining about the misconduct. The company agreed to conduct EEO training and refrain from future acts of discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v. McIntyre Group, Ltd. , No. 07 C 5458 (N.D. Ill. settled July, 2008) .
• In May 2008, the EEOC obtained a settlement of $1.65 million in a racial harassment case filed against a general contractor and its subsidiaries on behalf of a class of African American employees who were subjected to egregious racial harassment at a construction site in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The harassment included a life size noose made of heavy rope hung from a beam in a class member's work area for at least 10 days before it was removed; the regular use of the "N-word"; racially offensive comments made to Black individuals, including "I think everybody should own one" and "Black people are no good and you can't trust them" and "Black people can't read or write." Additionally, racist graffiti was written in portable toilets, with terms such as "coon"; "if u not White u not right"; "White power"; "KKK"; and "I love the Ku Klux Klan." Additional remedies were injunctive relief enjoining each defendant from engaging in racial harassment or retaliation; anti-discrimination training; the posting of a notice about the settlement; and reporting complaints of racial harassment to the EEOC for monitoring. EEOC v. Conectiv ,et al. Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00389 (E.D. Pa. settled May 5, 2008) .
• In August 2007, a renowned French chef agreed to pay $80,000 to settle claims that his upscale Manhattan restaurant discriminated against Hispanic workers and Asian employees from Bangladesh in job assignments. The aggrieved employees alleged that they were restricted to "back of the house" positions such as busboys and runners and refused promotions to "front of the house" positions such as captains, which instead went to Caucasian workers with less experience and seniority. They also alleged that they were subjected to racial insults and harassment when they complained. EEOC v. Restaurant Daniel, No. 07-6845 (S.D.N.Y. August 2, 2007) .
• In June 2007, EEOC obtained $500,000 from a South Lyon, Mich., steel tubing company, which, after purchasing the assets of its predecessor company, allegedly refused to hire a class of African American former employees of the predecessor. Though the company hired 52 of its predecessor's former employees, none of them were Black. EEOC charged that many of the White employees hired had significantly less experience than the Black former employees represented by the EEOC, and in some cases had actually been trained by the same African American employees who were denied hire. The suit also included other Black applicants who were denied hire in favor of less qualified White applicants. EEOC v. Michigan Seamless Tube , No. 05-73719 (E.D. Mich. June 8, 2007) .
• In February 2007, EEOC obtained a $5 million settlement resolving two consolidated class action employment discrimination lawsuits against a global engine systems and parts company, asserting that the company engaged in illegal discrimination against African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians at its Rockford and Rockton, Ill., facilities with respect to pay, promotions and training. EEOC v. Woodward Governor Company, No. 06-cv-50178 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2007).
• In August 2006, the Commission settled this Title VII lawsuit alleging that since at least 1991, defendant, a manufacturer of precision metal-formed products and assemblies, failed to hire women and Blacks into laborer and machine operator positions at its plant because of their sex and race for $940,000. The complaint also alleged that defendant failed to retain employment applications. The 39-month consent decree requires defendant to consider all female and Black applicants on the same basis as all other applicants, to engage in good faith efforts to increase recruitment of female and Black applicants, and to submit semiannual reports to EEOC that include applicant flow and hiring data by race and sex. EEOC v. S&Z Tool Co., Inc., No. 1:03CV2023 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2006) .
• In August 2006, a major national public works contractor paid $125,000 to settle race, gender, national origin and religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuits brought by EEOC on behalf of a class of Black, Asian, and female electricians who were subjected to daily harassment due to their race, national origin, and/or gender by their immediate foremen, racial and otherwise offensive graffiti in plain sight at the workplace, and retaliation for complaining. EEOC v. Amelco, No. C 05-2492 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006).
• In June 2005, EEOC obtained an $8 million dollar settlement from Ford Motor Co. and a major national union in a class race discrimination lawsuit, alleging that a test had a disproportionately negative impact on African American hourly employees seeking admission to an apprenticeship program. See http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-1-05.html
• In November 2004, the Commission settled for $50 million a lawsuit filed against Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of a class of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and women allegedly subjected to discrimination in recruitment, hiring, assignment, promotion and discharge based on race, color, national origin, and sex. Abercrombie & Fitch also agreed to improve hiring, recruitment, training, and promotions policies; revise marketing material; and select a Vice President of Diversity and diversity recruiters. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. , No. CV-04-4731 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2004).
• In November 2002, the Commission settled a lawsuit with the Las Vegas hotel for more than $1 million on behalf of African American and Hispanic applicants who were allegedly were not hired for server positions because of their race. The hotel also agreed to conduct antidiscrimination training and implement procedures to investigate discrimination complaints. EEOC v. The Mirage Hotel & Casino , No. CV S-02-1554 RLH - LRL (D.Nev. Nov. 27, 2002).
• In September 2006, the Korean owners of a fast food chain in Torrance, California agreed to pay $5,000 to resolve a Title VII lawsuit alleging that a 16-year old biracial girl, who looked like a fair-skinned African American, was refused an application for employment because of her perceived race (Black). According to the EEOC lawsuit, after a day at the beach with her Caucasian friends, the teen was asked if she would request an application on her friend's behalf since the friend was a little disheveled in appearance. The owner refused to give the teen an application and told her the store was not hiring anymore despite the presence of a "Help Wanted" sign in the window. After consultation among the friends, another White friend entered the store and was immediately given an application on request. EEOC v. Quiznos , No. 2:06-cv-00215-DSFJC (C.D. Cal. settled Sept. 22, 2006).
• In December 2005, EEOC resolved this Title VII lawsuit alleging that a fast food conglomerate subjected a Black female employee and other non-White restaurant staff members (some of them minors) to a hostile work environment based on race. The racial harassment included a male shift leader's frequent use of "nigger" and his exhortations that Whites were a superior race. Although the assistant manager received a letter signed by eight employees complaining about the shift leader's conduct, the shift leader was exonerated and the Black female employee who complained was fired. The consent decree provided $255,000 in monetary relief: $105,000 to Charging Party and $150,000 for a settlement fund for eligible claimants as determined by EEOC. EEOC v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Carl's Jr. Restaurant , No. CV-05-01978 FCD PAW (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2005).
• In October 2005, an elevator manufacturing company agreed to pay $75,000 to an 18-year-old African American welder and $100,000 to 12 other Black employees in an EEOC suit alleging racial harassment of the teen and a pattern of discrimination against African American employees at the Middleton, Tennessee facility. Harassment of the teen included calling him a "Black [S.O.B.]," telling racially offensive jokes, hiding his safety gloves, placing stink bombs under his workstation, and telling him that the vending machines do not take "crack money." EEOC v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Manufacturing, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-1160-T (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 2005).
• In September 2005, EEOC obtained a $34,000 default judgment on behalf of a then 19-year old Black former employee of a manufacturing plant in Illinois who alleged that he had been subjected to derogatory remarks and racial epithets, such as "what are you supposed to be, some kind of special nigger?" or name-calling such as "pencil dick," by his supervisor. The supervisor was the father of the company's president and he insisted that the "n-word" is Latin for "Black person." When the teen complained to the company president about the offensive remarks, the supervisor's son replied that he could not reprimand his father. EEOC v. Midwest Rack Manufacturing, Inc. , No. 05-194-WDS (S.D. Ill. Sep. 21, 2005).
• In March 2004, a Ruby Tuesday franchise agreed to pay $32,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit, alleging race discrimination in hiring against two African American college students who were refused employment as food servers in favor of several Caucasian applicants with less or similar experience and qualifications. According to the lawsuit, when the students met with the store manager, he briefly reviewed their applications and told them they were "not what he was looking for." EEOC v. RT KCMO, LLC d/b/a Ruby Tuesday's , No.03-CV-00983-FJG (W.D. Mo. settled March 30, 2004).
• In February 2004, the Commission settled a racial and sexual harassment lawsuit for $67,000 plus injunctive relief on behalf of two Black young female employees who alleged that they were subjected to unwelcome touching, degrading sexual and racial comments, and were shown a drawing of a Ku Klux Klan member by their supervisor. After one of the women complained, her hours were cut and she was eventually terminated. The other employee was forced to resign. EEOC v. Planet Wings of Rockland, Inc. , No. 03 CV 5430 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2004).

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

• In February 2020, a northern Indiana vending and coffee service provider paid $22,000 and provided other significant relief to resolve an EEOC race discrimination lawsuit alleging that the company discriminated against a Black applicant in filling vending service representative positions. EEOC v. Coffel Vending Co. , Case No. 3:19-cv-00596-PPS-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2020).
• In August 2019, Pier 1 Imports paid a $20,000 settlement to a Black job applicant in San Bernardino County who was denied an assistant manager position based on his race following a background check pursuant to a two-year conciliation agreement. As part of the agreement terms, the company admitted no liability, and Pier 1 Imports agreed to revise its policies, which include eliminating its background screening processes and removing the question about convictions from its job application. The EEOC will monitor the company’s compliance with the agreement.
• In August 2016, an Illinois-based payroll and human resource services firm agreed to a $1.4 million settlement of charges that the company discriminated against Black and Hispanic job applicants and employees. ADP LLC, under a conciliation agreement signed before any lawsuit was filed, also will enhance its recruitment, hiring and promotion of racial minorities, the EEOC announced July 29. ADP in resolving the charges didn't admit it engaged in any violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act..
• In March 2016, a manufacturing company based in New Ulm, Minn., paid $19,500 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC, alleging that Windings, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it refused to hire a biracial (African-American and White) applicant for a vacant assembler position, and instead hired a White applicant. According to EEOC's lawsuit, Kimball applied for a vacant assembler job and interviewed with the company in January 2014. The applicant was qualified for the job as he passed the job-related assessment tests, and had previous work experience as an assembler. In addition to the monetary relief, the two-year consent decree requires Windings to use hiring procedures to provide equal employment opportunity to all applicants including posting vacancy announcements and job listings on its website, and not solely rely on word-of-mouth recruitment or employee referrals. Windings also will use objective standards for hiring, guidelines for structured interviews, and will document interviews. Windings adopted a written affirmative action plan, and will seek out applications from qualified minority applicants, including African-Americans. Also, Windings agrees to participate in job fairs and recruiting events that target Black Americans and to provide EEOC with reports of its applicants, hiring and specific reasons why applicants were not selected during the decree's term. EEOC v. Windings, Inc ., Civil Action No. 15-cv-02901 (D. Minn. consent decree filed Mar. 18, 2016).
• In September 2015, Cabela's Inc., an outdoor recreation merchandiser based in Sidney, Nebraska with 60 retail stores in 33 states, agreed to take nationwide measures to increase the diversity of its workforce to settle EEOC's allegations that the company discriminated in recruitment and hiring of minorities. The settlement agreement resolves an EEOC commissioner's charge filed against the company. Under the agreement, Cabela's is required to appoint a diversity and inclusion director who will report directly to the company's chief administrative officer and set hiring goals designed to achieve parity in the hiring rates of white and minority job applicants. The agreement also requires Cabela's to make equal employment opportunity compliance a component in the performance evaluation of managers and supervisors, to update its EEO policies, and provide annual training on EEO issues for all employees.
• In April 2015, a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss a claim of racial discrimination in hiring against Rosebud Restaurants, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. In its complaint, the EEOC charged that the Chicago-area Italian restaurant chain violated federal civil rights laws by refusing to hire African-Americans because of their race. The company's motion to dismiss argued that the EEOC's complaint should be dismissed because it did not identify the victims of the alleged hiring discrimination. the court rejected that argument, concluding that the EEOC's "allegations of intentional discrimination are sufficient to state a claim for Title VII relief . . . even in the absence of the identification of an individual job applicant who was rejected because of his race." EEOC v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc. , Civil Action No. 13-cv-6656 (N.D. Ill. decision filed Apr. 7, 2015) .
• In September 2014, the EEOC appealed the dismissal of its race discrimination complaints alleging that an employer's withdrawal of a job offer from a qualified Black applicant because she refused to cut off her dreadlocks constituted race discrimination under Title VII. On the appeal, the Commission contends that the district court improperly dismissed its original and amended complaints because they stated plausible claims of intentional discrimination. Specifically, the Commission argued that the employer's application of its grooming policy to prohibit dreadlocks discriminates on the immutable trait of racial hair texture, violates the fundamental right to freedom of racial expression, and promotes unlawful racial stereotyping. EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Solutions , No. 14-13482 (11th Cir. Brief filed Sept. 22, 2014) .
• In June 2013, the EEOC and J.B. Hunt Transport Inc. settled a race discrimination charge alleging the nationwide transportation company engaged in unlawful race discrimination by rejecting a Black truck driver applicant because of a prior criminal conviction unrelated to his prospective job duties. The settlement follows conciliation of an EEOC charge under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act over claims that an African-American job candidate was denied a truck driver position at a J.B. Hunt facility in San Bernardino, Calif., in 2009 based on a criminal conviction record, which the EEOC contends was unrelated to the duties of the job. The federal agency also reviewed the company's broader policy with respect to the hiring of job applicants with conviction records. Blanket prohibitions are not in accordance with the agency's policy guidance on the subject, which was reissued on April 25, 2010. The EEOC's guidance recommends evaluating: the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct; the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence; and the nature of the job sought prior to disqualifying a candidate with such a record. J.B. Hunt also reached a private settlement with the alleged discrimination victim, who filed an EEOC charge after being denied a job at J.B. Hunt's San Bernardino, Calif., facility in 2009. As part of a five-year conciliation agreement, J.B. Hunt agreed to review and, if necessary, revise its hiring and selection policies to comply with EEOC's April 2012 enforcement guidance regarding employers' use of arrest and conviction records. The EEOC will monitor compliance with the conciliation agreement. The EEOC entered into a pre-suit conciliation agreement.
• In November 2012, Alliant Techsystems Inc. paid $100,000 to settle an EEOC suit alleging that the company violated Title VII when it refused to hire an African-American woman for a technical support job at its offices in Edina because of her race. According to the lawsuit, the alleged victim applied and was interviewed several times for the job in May 2007. After the first interview, the recruiter allegedly advised her to take out her braids to appear more professional. She did so and purportedly was later told by the recruiter that Alliant wanted to hire her and that she would be contacted by the company's Human Resources Department. However, by the time she met with the company's information technology director, she had put her braids back in. The next day, she was informed that she would not be hired. In June 2007, the company hired a White male for the IT job. The 3-year consent decree, which applies to the company's headquarters in Minnesota and Virginia, enjoins Alliant from further discriminating in hiring based on race and from retaliating against persons who oppose practices made unlawful under Title VII. Additionally, the company will review its workplace policies to assure that they comply with Title VII and will train its entire staff on the laws against discrimination. EEOC v. Alliant Techsystems Inc., Case No. 0:11-cv-02785-DSD-JJG (D. Minn. consent decree filed Nov. 20, 2012).
• In April 2012, Bankers Asset Management Inc. agreed to pay $600,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the real estate company excluded Black applicants from jobs at the company's Little Rock location based on their race. The firm also allegedly retaliated against other employees and former employees for opposing or testifying about the race discrimination by demoting and forcing one worker out of her job and by suing others in state court. In addition to paying $600,000, the three-year consent decree settling the lawsuit also requires Bankers Asset Management to hold a mandatory, annual three-hour training on race discrimination and retaliation in which its president or another officer participates, among other provisions. EEOC v. Bankers Asset Mgmt. Inc. , Civil Action No. 4:10-CV-002070-SWW (E.D. Ark.Apr. 18, 2012).
• In February 2012, the owners of Piggly Wiggly supermarkets in Hartsville and Lafayette, Tenn., agreed to pay $40,000 to settle a race and gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In its lawsuit, the EEOC asserted that the Piggly Wiggly locations owned by MWR Enterprises Inc. II violated federal law by maintaining policies and practices that intentionally failed to hire African-Americans because of their race for positions at the company's Piggly Wiggly store in Hartsville and Lafayette. The EEOC further charged that the company maintained a segregated work force and an established practice of not hiring males for cashier positions at the same locations. The four-year consent decree also requires Defendant MWR Enterprises Inc., II, to establish a written policy which provides that all job assignments will be made without consideration to gender; establish guidelines and procedures for processing employment applications; provide Title VII training on race and gender discrimination to its managers; meet recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and post a notice about the lawsuit and settlement at its store locations. EEOC v. MWR Enterprises Inc., II , C.A. No. 3:10-cv-00901 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 23, 2012).
• In January 2012, a Johnson City, N.Y -based cleaning company agreed to pay $450,000 to 15 former employees to settle a hiring discrimination and retaliation case. According to an EEOC lawsuit filed in September 2011 in a federal court in Pennsylvania, the executives of the cleaning company prohibited a White supervisor from hiring Black employees for a client in Concordsville, PA. The supervisor continued to hire qualified Black workers, and later was fired for defying her managers' instructions. The EEOC also alleged that the company forced Black workers at the Concordville worksite to sit in the back of the cafeteria during breaks, and ultimately barred them from the cafeteria altogether The company later fired the entire crew, replacing them with all non-Black workers. The EEOC filed a lawsuit seeking relief for the terminated supervisor and Black employees. In addition to the monetary relief, the company agreed to providing EEO training for its managers and supervisors the company and to submit a follow-up report on remedial measures being taken at the Concordville worksite. EEOC v. Matrix L.L.C. , Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-06183 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2012).
• In January 2012, a marine construction and transportation company located in Dyersburg, Tenn., will pay an African-American job applicant $75,000 to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the company refused to hire a Black job applicant for a deckhand position because of his race in violation of Title VII. In addition to the monetary relief, a three-year consent decree requires the company to use its best efforts to fill up to 25 percent of available positions with African-Americans. Choctaw has also been ordered to maintain records of discrimination complaints, provide annual reports to the EEOC, and post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that includes the EEOC's contact information. EEOC v. Choctaw Transp. Co., Inc. , 1:10-cv-01248-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 19, 2012).
• In September 2011, the EEOC filed suit against Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, alleging that the nationwide retailer of sporting goods, apparel, and other miscellaneous products has been discriminating in its hiring since at least November 2005. The EEOC's suit alleged that qualified African-Americans and Hispanics were routinely denied retail positions such as cashier, sales associate, team leader, supervisor, manager and other positions at many Bass Pro stores nationwide and that managers at Bass Pro stores in the Houston area, in Louisiana, and elsewhere made overtly racially derogatory remarks acknowledging the discriminatory practices, including that hiring Black candidates did not fit the corporate profile. The lawsuit also claims that Bass Pro punished employees who opposed the company's unlawful practices, in some instances firing them or forcing them to resign. EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC , Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-03425 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2011).
• In March 2011, a federal district court in Maryland rejected a novel attempt by a national restaurant chain to block the EEOC from airing radio spots seeking Black individuals who applied for a job or worked at the chain's Baltimore location, in connection with its race bias suit against the restaurant. EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Rests. Inc. , No. 1:08-cv-00984 (D. Md. motion denied Mar. 17, 2011) .
• In December 2010, the EEOC filed a race discrimination and retaliation suit against a real estate brokerage and management company alleging that the company refused to hire numerous Black applicants and then retaliated against other employees or former employees for opposing the race discrimination. The lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, instatement or reinstatement as well as an injunction against future discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v. Cry-Leike, Inc. , Civil Action No. 4:10-CV-002070 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 30, 2010) .
• In November 2010, a Chicago janitorial services provider agreed to pay $3 million to approximately 550 rejected Black job applicants under a four-year consent decree, settling the EEOC's allegations of race and national origin discrimination in recruitment and hiring. The EEOC had alleged that the provider had recruited through media directed at Eastern European immigrants and Hispanics and hired people from those groups over African Americans, and that the provider's use of subjective decisionmaking had a disparate impact on African Americans. As part of the decree, the provider also agreed to extensive changes in its employment policies, to engage in "active recruitment" of African American employees, to hire previously rejected Black applicants, to implement training on discrimination and retaliation, and to hire an outside monitor to review compliance with the decree. EEOC v. Scrub Inc., No. 09 C 4228 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 9, 2010) .
• In June 2010, the EEOC obtained a ruling by the Ninth Circuit that permits the Commission to pursue injunctive relief to stop a coal company mining in the Navajo Nation from discriminating in employment against non-Navajo Indians. In this Title VII case, EEOC claimed mineral lease provisions that require companies mining on the Navajo reservation in Arizona to give employment preferences to Navajos are unlawful. By honoring those provisions and refusing to hire non-Navajo Indians, Peabody discriminates based on national origin, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, EEOC asserted. EEOC also can proceed with efforts to secure an injunction against future enforcement of the Navajo hiring preference, the court added. Should a court find a Title VII violation and issue such an injunction, Peabody and the Navajo Nation could file a third-party complaint against the Interior Secretary under Rule 14(a) to prevent the Secretary from seeking to enforce the lease provisions or cancel the leases, it said. EEOC v. Peabody W. Coal Co. , No. 06-17261 (9th Cir. June 23, 2010).
• In January 2010, an international investment management firm based in Malvern, Pennsylvania settled for $300,000 the EEOC's Title VII lawsuit, alleging that the firm failed to hire an African American female applicant for a financial planning manager position at defendant's Charlotte, North Carolina office because of her race. She was the only African American among four candidates, and according to the EEOC, had met or exceeded all requirements for the job, had received highly favorable comments as she progressed through defendant's interview process, which included multiple in-person and telephone interviews with high level managers, as well as an in-person assessment by a third party on matters such as personality and aptitude. Additionally, at the conclusion of her final interview, defendant's managing director allegedly told the Black applicant she was "obviously qualified for the position." The firm, however, offered the job to two less qualified White applicants -- the first declined and the second accepted. The 2-year consent decree also enjoins the firm from making hiring decisions based on race and prohibits retaliation. EEOC v. Vanguard Group, Inc. , No. 09-04424 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2010) .
• In March 2009, a manufacturer and distributor of foodservice equipment has offered permanent employment to an African American applicant and furnished other relief to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit alleging that the company refused to hire the Black applicant into a permanent position at its Fayetteville, Tenn., facility because he disclosed a felony conviction on his application - even though the company hired a White applicant a year earlier who made a similar disclosure. EEOC v. Franke, Inc., dba Franke Foodservice Systems , No. 3:08-cv-0515 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 26, 2009).
• In October 2008, a department store chain in Iowa entered a consent decree agreeing to pay $50,000 and to provide other affirmative relief. EEOC had alleged that the store chain refused to hire qualified Black job applicants for sales, truck driver and other positions in its retail or warehouse facilities for reasons that were not applied to successful White applicants. In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree requires the store chain to post a remedial notice, provide semi-annual training to managers and supervisors on employee and applicant rights under Title VII and employer obligations under Title VII, and report applicant data and any future complaints related to racial discrimination to the EEOC. EEOC v. Von Maur , No. 06-CV-182 (S.D. Iowa Apr. 19, 2006 settled Oct. 29, 2008) .
• In July 2008, EEOC resolved a race discrimination and retaliation suit for $140,000 against a Mississippi U-Haul company. The company was accused of discriminating on the basis of race when it hired the son of a selecting official rather than a veteran African American manager, to serve as the company's marketing company president. The Black manager had worked for U-Haul for ten years as a reservation manager, assistant manager, general manager, area field manager and field relief manager, and held a bachelor's degree in business manage¬ment as well as having received various awards for performance. The company, however, altered the job's requirements and hired the executive's son who lacked a college degree and had scanty experience compared with the Black manager. The manager complained and the company disciplined and fired him. The company has agreed to adopt an online employee handbook and other documents spelling out company policies and practices; to post all vacancies for marketing company president; to provide training on discrimination and retaliation to all board members; and to provide periodic reports to the EEOC. EEOC v. U-Haul Co. of Mississippi, Civil Action No. 3:06cv516 (S.D. Miss. filed July 2008).
• In June 2008, a beauty supply chain agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC charged that it rescinded a job offer after learning the successful applicant was Black. In a deposition, the former acting store manager of the West Orange store gave sworn testimony that she had a telephone conversation with the district manager after the applicant had applied, and the district manager "told [me] she didn't want another Black person working in the store." When the selectee arrived at the store on her starting date, she was informed that she could not be hired due to her race because there would have been too many African Americans at the store. EEOC v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC , Civil Action No. 1:07cv644 (E.D. Tex. settled June 23, 2008).
• In September 2007, EEOC upheld an Administrative Judge's (AJ) default judgment in favor of complainant, a Staff Nurse Supervisor, who had alleged race discrimination when she was not selected for a Nurse Manager position. The AJ sanctioned the agency for failing to timely investigate the complaint. Relief included retroactive promotion, back pay and a tailored order to allow complainant to submit her request for fees incurred solely for the successful prosecution of the appeal. Royal v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070045 (Sep. 10, 2007).
• In January 2007, the Commission found discrimination based on race (African-American) when a federal employee was not selected for the position of Criminal Investigator despite plainly superior qualifications as compared to the selectee. The manager who recommended the selectee, ignored complainant's qualifications and was reported to have previously told another African-American applicant that his "Black ass would never become a special agent." The Commission affirmed the AJ's finding of discrimination and ordered the retroactive promotion of complainant, back pay, compensatory damages ($75,000), attorney's fees, and other relief. Green v. Department of Homeland Security , EEOC Appeal No. 0720060058 (January 19, 2007).
• In November 2006, the Commission found that a federal employee had been discriminated against based on his race (Asian/Pacific Islander) when he was not selected for the position of Social Insurance Specialist. The Commission affirmed the AJ's finding that the agency's articulated reason for failing to select complainant -- the selectee was "highly recommended" to the selecting official -- was not worthy of belief since complainant was "definitely recommended" and that discrimination more likely motivated the agency's decision. The Commission ordered the retroactive promotion of complainant, back pay, compensatory damages ($5,000), attorney's fees, and other relief. Paras v. SSA , EEOC Appeal No. 0720060049 (November 6, 2006).
• In August 2006, a federal appellate court in Illinois reversed a negative trial court ruling and decided that the EEOC had produced sufficient evidence to proceed to trial in its race discrimination case against Target Corporation, a major retailer. According to the lawsuit, an interviewing official for the company refused to schedule interviews for four Black applicants seeking entry-level management positions because of their race. The Commission's evidence included inculpatory tester evidence and expert testimony indicating that the names and voices of the Black applicants, as well as some of the organizational affiliations (e.g. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.) disclosed on their resumes, could have served as proxies for race. EEOC v. Target Corporation , 460 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 2006).

Customer/Patient Preference

• In September 2019, Lexington Treatment Associates, a Delaware-based limited liability company that owns and operates methadone clinics in North Carolina, paid $110,000 and provided other relief to settle a racial harassment lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The EEOC had charged that the company violated Title VII when it subjected three Black employees at its Lexington, N.C., facility to a racially hostile work environment. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, from February 2017 to at least July 2018, Treatment Centers subjected a Substance Abuse Counselor Allen Parson and two other African American employees were repeatedly and openly subjected to racial slurs by several clients of the facility and race-based counselor assignments to accommodate White clients' racial preferences not to be assigned to Black counselors. EEOC v. Treatment Centers, LLC d/b/a Lexington Treatment Assocs. , Civil Action No.1:19-cv-00933 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 12, 2019).
• In September 2013, Hurley Medical Center entered into a 5-year agreement with the EEOC to settle its lawsuit alleging that a White father reportedly demanded no African-American nurses treat his newborn baby. Four nurses filed discrimination lawsuits after a Hurley staff member allegedly posted a note with the father's instructions. Pursuant to the agreement, the EEOC will conduct non-discrimination training for all Hurley staff each year and will examine any progress made to see if more needs to be done. Hurley also agreed to pay about $200,000 in March to settle a lawsuit filed by three nurses. Hurley also agreed to pay about $200,000 in March to settle a lawsuit filed by three nurses. "In the Matter of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Tonya Battle, Charging Party, and Hurley Medical Center, Respondent," Detroit Field Office, September 26, 2013. See also Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights and Hurley Medical Center, 13-156114, (July 31, 2014 available at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/activities/agreements/hurley.html ).
• In December 2010, a company which provides in-home care certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and non-CNAs to seniors in Anne Arundel County and Howard County, Maryland agreed to settle claims alleging that it discriminated based on race in assigning caregivers. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the company coded the preferences of clients who requested White caregivers, and made assignments based on the preferences. For example, "circle dots" referred to the clients that preferred Caucasian caregivers. The facility claimed that it ceased the coding practice in 2008, but admitted that it continued to take client racial preferences into account in making caregiver assignments. The 5-year consent decree provides $150,000 in compensatory damages to be distributed to claimants (defined as all caregivers employed by defendant from October 2007 through entry of the decree) in amounts determined by EEOC based on length of service and employment status. The decree enjoins the company from racial coding and prohibits race-based caregiver assignments. The injunction survives the decree. Where a client indicates a preference not to have a caregiver of a certain race, and there is a risk that the client will become violent, the facility will notify the caregiver, who can choose to refuse the assignment. The company also will provide 2 hours of training annually to recruiters and HR personnel on Title VII, with a special emphasis on the discriminatory assignment of caregivers based on the racial preferences of clients. EEOC v. HiCare, Inc., dba Home Instead Senior Care , No. 1:10-CV-02692 (D. Md. Dec. 10, 2010) .
• In July 2010, Plaintiff Brenda Chaney and the EEOC as amicus curiae obtained a reversal of a summary judgment in favor of an employer in a Title VII case that "pit[ted] a [Black] health-care worker's right to a non-discriminatory workplace against a patient's demand for [W]hite-only health-care providers." In this race-based action, an Indiana nursing home housed a White resident who did not want any assistance from Black health-care staff. The facility complied with the patient's request by informing Plaintiff "in writing everyday that 'no Black' assistants should enter this resident's room or provide her with care." Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the facility's acquiescence to the racial biases of its residents is illegal and created a hostile work environment. She also asserted that her termination was racially motivated. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit unanimously rejected the facility's argument that Indiana's patient-rights law permitted such practice and remanded the case for trial because the "the racial preference policy violates Title VII by creating a hostile work environment and because issues of fact remain over whether race motivated the discharge." Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center , 612 F .3d 908 (7th Cir. 2010).
• In December 2007, a Minnesota-based frozen food home delivery service agreed to pay $87,250 and provide Title VII training to settle an EEOC race discrimination case alleging that the company discriminated against qualified African-American job applicants at its Missouri facility. EEOC alleged that the company refused to hire Black applicants because it was concerned that its customers would be uncomfortable with a Black man coming to their home and would be intimidated by him. Consequently, despite promising the Black applicant he would be hired for a warehouse position, the company hired a less qualified White applicant. EEOC v. Schwan's Home Services, Inc. , No. 4:07-CV-00221-AGF (E.D. Mo. settled Dec. 17, 2007) .
• In April 2007, a Pennsylvania hot dog franchise entered a consent decree with the EEOC agreeing to pay $7,500, to post a remedial notice in the restaurant, to semi-annually report on any future complaints alleging racial discrimination to the EEOC for a period of four years, and to provide Title VII training to all supervisors and managers. In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that the franchise ordered the store manager to fire the African American employees because the student patrons did not like to be waited on by them. After firing several of the Black employees, the store manager resigned in protest and the general manager fired the remaining African American employees himself. The consent decree also enjoins The Original Hot Dog Shop from creating, tolerating, or fostering a hostile work environment based on race. EEOC v. The Original Hot Dog Shop , No. 06-CV-1243-JFC-RCM (W.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2007) .
• In October 2005, the EEOC obtained $650,000 for named claimants and an additional $70,000 for "unknown class members" in a Title VII lawsuit alleging that the owner of assisted living and other senior facilities in 14 states engaged in discriminatory hiring practices based on race and/or color. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that defendant's former general manager refused to hire Blacks and other non-Caucasian applicants into nursing support, food service, and housekeeping positions at an assisted living facility and coded the applications of minority applicants because she believed residents preferred White employees and did not want minorities to come into their rooms. Additionally, defendant failed to retain employment applications as required by EEOC's regulations implementing section 709(c) of Title VII. Pursuant to a 42-month consent, defendant is prohibited from discriminating or retaliating and is required to advise recruiting sources that it hires without regard to race or color. EEOC v. Merrill Gardens, LLC, No. 1:05-CV-004 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 2005)
• In September 2005, the nation's largest maker and retailer of wooden play systems agreed to pay six people a total of $275,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit, which alleged that the company's owner pursued a policy of limiting the hiring and promotion opportunities of African Americans and Hispanics and fired a White district manager in retaliation for recommending two Blacks for district manager openings after telling him that "our customers can't relate to minorities and therefore we must be choosy who we hire." EEOC v. Creative Playthings, Inc. , No. 04-cv-3243 (E.D. Pa. press release issued Sep. 15, 2005).
• In March 2004, EEOC settled a failure to promote case for $45,000, in which the company's president and CEO defended its action by arguing that the company was in "redneck country" and customers would not accept a Black man as an account manager. EEOC v. Frontier Materials Corp., No. H-03-856 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2004).
• In February 2020, a Texas-based fiberglass conduit and strut manufacturer implemented extensive hiring reforms and paid $225,000 to settle allegations by the EEOC that it refused to hire non-Hispanic individuals as laborers. A Black, non-Hispanic man told the EEOC that the company refused to provide him with a job application after it learned he couldn't speak Spanish. The EEOC sued on behalf of an entire class of non-Hispanic job applicants who were allegedly negatively affected by Champion Fiberglass' hiring approach dating back to at least 2013.  According to the consent decree, "these policies and practices have resulted in a laborer workforce that is almost 100% Hispanic."  In accordance with the agreement, the company will pay a civil penalty and discontinue its "word-of-mouth" referrals to settle the accusations that its behavior stifled diversity in the laborer role. EEOC v. Champion Fiberglass, Inc. , No. 4:17-cv-02226  (S. D. Tx. Feb. 28, 2020).
•  In September 2019, a San Jose, California food producer and distributor paid $2 million to settle an EEOC race discrimination lawsuit, charging that the company refused to hire non-Hispanic applicants of all races, including Black, White and Asian applicants,  for unskilled production warehouse positions because its affiliates preferred Hispanic job applicants.  The lawsuit also alleged that the companies discouraged non-Hispanic applicants for applying for open positions by imposing a language requirement not required for the job in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to the monetary settlement, the company agreed to hire an external monitor and implement hiring goals and measures to ensure hiring transparency and diversification. EEOC v. Marquez Brothers International Inc. , No. Case No: 1:17-cv-00044-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2019).
• In July 2018, a Miami Beach hotel operator paid $2.5 million to settle an EEOC lawsuit that alleged the company had fired Black Haitian dishwashers who had complained about discrimination and replaced them with mostly light-skinned Hispanic workers. The EEOC also charged that their supervising chefs referred to the affected dishwashers as “f-----g Haitians,” and  “slaves” and reprimanded them for speaking Creole, even amongst themselves, while Hispanic employees were permitted to speak Spanish. EEOC v. SLS Hotel South Beach , Case No. 1:17-cv-21446 (S.D. Fla. July xx, 2018).
• In September 2016, Resource Employment Solutions, LLC, a temporary staffing agency, will pay $435,000 to settle a race and national origin discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The Commission claimed that the company illegally granted placement preferences to Hispanic temps over African American temps. Specifically, the company allegedly violated federal law by failing to place a class of African American workers into temporary shipping positions at a FedEx SmartPost location in Southaven, Mississippi. Instead, the staffing agency granted placement preferences to Hispanic workers and also retaliated against an African American employee who complained of the discrimination by refusing to place her and denying her a promotion. The four-year consent decree also includes provisions requiring anti-discrimination training, reporting, and postings. EEOC v. Resource Employment Solutions, LLC , No. 3:14-cv-00217-MPM-SAA (N.D. Miss. Aug. 29, 2016).
• In July 2016, J&R Baker Farms LLC agreed to pay $205,000 and comply with the terms of a consent decree to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging the Georgia farm favored foreign-born employees over African American and Caucasian domestic workers in employment. Specifically, the suit alleged that Baker Farms gave American-born workers fewer hours and tasks compared with the foreign-born workers and discharged U.S.-born white and African-American employees based on their race or national origin. The lawsuit also alleged that Baker Farms segregated work crews by national origin and race. The U.S.-born employees were allegedly subjected to tougher production standards and sent home early on days in which the foreign-born workers continued to work. The settlement requires Baker Farms to stop discriminatory practices on the basis of national origin or race, refrain from automatically filling jobs with H-2A workers, or foreign nationals who receive a visa to fill temporary agricultural jobs, without first considering American workers and institute a formal anti-discrimination policy by Aug. 1, in addition to the monetary relief. The two-year consent decree also requires the farm must hold interviews at the Georgia Department of Labor at least one day a week for two weeks "before the start of each H-2A season," and provide to the EEOC upon request a list of those people they hired, including their names, phone numbers, addresses and national origin, in addition to applicants not hired and those whom they fired, including any claims of discrimination, with those same details. EEOC v. J&R Baker Farms LLC , No. 7:14-cv-00136 (M.D. Ga. July 6, 2016).
• In April 2016, Lawler Foods, a large local bakery, agreed to settle for $1 million an EEOC race and national origin discrimination class case. The EEOC alleged that Lawler violated Title VII by engaging in a pattern or practice of intentionally failing to hire black and other non-Hispanic applicants for jobs, and by using hiring practices, including word-of-mouth recruiting and advertising a Spanish-language preference, that had an adverse disparate impact on black and other non-Hispanic applicants without any business justification. In addition to the monetary claims fund, the four-year consent decree provides for extensive injunctive relief, including recruiting and hiring of blacks and non-Hispanic job applicants, and training for managers. Additionally, Lawler will seek to recruit and hire black and other non-Hispanic job applicants for its production jobs; conduct an extensive self-assessment of its hiring to ensure non-discrimination and compliance with the terms of the consent decree; conduct employee training to further its non-discrimination commitment; and designate an internal leader to prioritize compliance with the requirements of the consent decree. EEOC v. Lawlor Foods , Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-03588 (Apr. 26, 2016).
• In July 2014, EEOC filed a lawsuit against AutoZone alleging the company unjustly fired a Chicago man for refusing to be transferred because of his race. The complaint alleges that AutoZone attempted in 2012 to redistribute the non-Hispanic workers at its auto parts retail location at S. Kedzie Ave and W. 49th Street in Gage Park. The EEOC claims that the company wanted to broaden the number of Hispanics at the store to better reflect its customer base. The EEOC said that when an African American sales manager was allegedly told to report to another store on the far South Side, he was fired for refusing the transfer. EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc. , No. 1:14cv5579 (7th Cir. complaint filed July 22, 2014).
• In December 2012, Hamilton Growers, Inc., doing business as Southern Valley Fruit and Vegetable, Inc., an agricultural farm in Norman Park, Ga., agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of American seasonal workers - many of them African-American - who, the EEOC alleged, were subjected to discrimination based on their national origin and/or race, the agency announced today. The agreement resolves a lawsuit filed by the EEOC in September 2011. The EEOC's suit had charged that the company unlawfully engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against American workers by firing virtually all American workers while retaining workers from Mexico during the 2009, 2010 and 2011 growing seasons. The agency also alleged that Hamilton Growers fired at least 16 African-American workers in 2009 based on race and/or national origin as their termination was coupled with race-based comments by a management official. Additionally, the lawsuit charged that Hamilton Growers provided lesser job opportunities to American workers by assigning them to pick vegetables in fields which had already been picked by foreign workers, which resulted in Americans earning less pay than their Mexican counterparts. EEOC v. Hamilton Growers, Inc. , No. 7:11-cv-134 (M.D. Ga. Consent decree entered Dec. 10, 2012).
• In December 2012, EEOC and a North Carolina printing firm settled for $334,000 a lawsuit alleging the firm violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by not placing non-Hispanic workers in its "core group" of regular temporary workers who perform the company's light bindery production jobs and giving disproportionately more work hours to Hispanic workers. Under the proposed two-year consent decree, PBM Graphics Inc. would place the settlement funds in escrow for distribution later among non-Hispanic workers identified by EEOC as victims of the alleged national origin discrimination. EEOC v. PBM Graphics Inc., No. 11-805 (M.D.N.C. proposed consent decree filed 12/10/12).
• In October 2012, a Hampton Inn franchise in Craig, Colorado agreed to pay $85,000 to resolve a race and national origin discrimination lawsuit regarding the terminations of three Caucasian and non-Latino employees. According to the lawsuit, the general manager of the hotel allegedly was told by the business owners "to hire more qualified maids, and that they preferred maids to be Hispanic because in their opinion Hispanics worked harder" and that White or non-Hispanic workers were indolent. EEOC v. Century Shree Corp. & Century Rama Inc ., Case No. 11-cv-2558-REB-CBS (D. Colo. Oct. 2, 2012).
• In September 2012, an Indianapolis hotel agreed to pay $355,000 to settle a job discrimination case with the EEOC. The Hampton Inn is accused of firing Black housekeepers because of their race and retaliating against those who had complained. According to the EEOC, the general manager of the Hampton Inn hotel advised her employees that she wanted to get "Mexicans" in who would clean better and complain less than her black housekeeping staff, even if the Hispanic hires were equally or less qualified than Black candidates. In addition to the monetary relief, the hotel must offer three of those employees their next available housekeeping positions and train any employees involved in the hiring process. EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels, Inc. , Case No. 1:10-cv-1234 (S.D. Ind. Sep. 21, 2010).
• In September 2010, the EEOC sued an Indianapolis hotel for denying employment to Black housekeeping applicants, offering lower pay and hours to Black housekeeping staff, terminating Black housekeeping staff who complained of the less favorable treatment, and destroying employment records since at least September 2, 2008 because of the hotel's preference for Hispanic workers. According to the EEOC, the general manager of the Hampton Inn hotel located at 2311 North Shadeland Ave. advised her employees that she wanted to get "Mexicans" in who would clean better and complain less than her Black housekeeping staff. The EEOC's lawsuit seeks relief for a class of terminated housekeeping employees as well as a class of Black housekeeping applicants who sought employment at its Shadeland Avenue Hampton Inn facility between approximately September 2, 2008 and June 2009. EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels Inc. , Case No. 1:10-cv-1234 (S.D. Ind. filed Sept. 30, 2010) .
• In August 2010, a judge refused to dismiss an EEOC lawsuit alleging that a freight management company hired Hispanic workers to the exclusion of equally or more qualified non-Hispanic employees for non-management positions at a Wal-Mart distribution facility in Shelby, North Carolina. The court rejected the company's claims that the EEOC had failed to state a claim in its complaint and that the suit was barred by laches. EEOC v. Propak Logistics Inc. , No. 09-00311 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2010) .
• In August 2010, a temporary staffing agency with operations in five states admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to pay $585,000 to settle an EEOC suit alleging that the agency favored Hispanic workers over Black workers in hiring at a warehouse in Memphis, Tennessee. The Commission claimed that the agency selected Hispanics regardless of prior experience, place in line or availability. In addition to the monetary settlement, the staffing agency will create and publish a written hiring and placement policy prohibiting discrimination, post such policy at its Memphis facilities, and provide race and national origin discrimination awareness training for all recruiters, and onsite personnel. Further, to demonstrate its strong and clear commitment to a workplace free of race and national origin discrimination, the agency agreed that if it advertises, it will devote a portion of its advertising budget to placing ads in diverse media outlets. EEOC v. Paramount Staffing Inc. , No. 2:06-02624 (W.D. Tenn. settled Aug. 23, 2010) .
• In August 2009, a Pinehurst, N.C.-based support services company for condominium complexes and resorts paid $44,700 and will furnish significant remedial relief to settle a race and national origin discrimination lawsuit, alleging the company unlawfully discharged six housekeepers because of their race (African American) and national origin (non-Hispanic) and immediately replaced them with Hispanic workers. EEOC v. Little River Golf, Inc. , No. 1:08CV00546 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2009).
• In May 2009, a Statesville, NC grocery store agreed to settle for $30,000 a lawsuit alleging that it had fired a White, non-Hispanic meat cutter based on his race and national origin and replaced him with a less-qualified Hispanic employee. In addition, the store has agreed to distribute a formal, written anti-discrimination policy, train all employees on the policy and employment discrimination laws, and send reports to the EEOC on employees who are fired or resign. EEOC v. West Front Street Foods LLC, d/b/a Compare Foods , No 5:08-cv-102 (W.D.N.C. settled May 19, 2009).
• In January 2008, a Charlotte, N.C supermarket chain paid $40,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the supermarket fired or forced long-term Caucasian and African American employees to resign and replaced them with Hispanic workers after it took over a particular facility.the case. In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree required the company to distribute a formal, written anti-discrimination policy; provide periodic training to all its employees on the policy and on Title VII's prohibition against national origin and race discrimination; send periodic reports to the EEOC concerning employees who are fired or resign; and post a "Notice to Employees" concerning this lawsuit. EEOC v. E&T Foods , LLC, d/b/a Compare Foods, Civil Action No 3:06-cv-318 (W.D.N.C. settled Jan. 28, 2008).
• In December 2018, Maritime Autowash (later known as Phase 2 Investments, Inc.) paid $300,000 in monetary relief and furnished equitable relief to settle an EEOC race and national origin discrimination lawsuit. According to the EEOC's August 2017 lawsuit, Maritime violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by segregating a class of Hispanic workers into lower-paying jobs as laborers or detailers at its former Edgewater, Md., facility. Maritime allegedly failed to offer them promotion or advancement opportunities to key employee or cashier positions, despite their tenure and outstanding job performance, and paid many class members only the minimum wage despite years of service, while paying non-Hispanic workers higher wages and promoting them. The EEOC also charged that Maritime discriminated against the Hispanic class members in their terms and conditions of employment, such as forcing them to perform other duties without additional compensation and denying them proper safety equipment or clothing. The EEOC said Maritime required Hispanic workers to perform personal tasks for the owner and managers, such as routinely assigning the female Hispanic class members to clean the houses of the owner or manager and assigning the male Hispanics to perform duties at their homes, such as landscaping, cleaning the pool, picking up dog excrement, painting or helping with moves. The three-year consent decree enjoins Maritime from retaliating in the future against any individual for asserting his or her rights under Title VII or otherwise engaging in protected activity. Should Maritime reopen and reactivate its Maryland facilities, it shall be enjoined from creating or maintaining a hostile work environment and inferior economic terms and conditions of employ­ment on the basis of national origin or race. EEOC v. Phase 2 Investments, Inc. , Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02463 (D. Md. pre-trial settlement filed Dec. 2018). 
• In June 2017, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Commission's race segregation claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2), Title VII's subsection prohibiting the limiting, classifying, or segregating of employees based on a protected trait. The court "assume[d] for the sake of argument" that the evidence created a material factual dispute about whether AutoZone intentionally segregated its Black employee Kevin Stuckey because of his race when it transferred him out of a predominantly Hispanic-staffed store. But it concluded that a jury would not find the lateral transfer had adversely affected Stuckey's employment since he suffered no reduction in pay, benefits, or responsibilities and it did not "alter his conditions of employment in a detrimental way." Nonetheless, the court rejected AutoZone's argument, accepted by the district court below, that the absence of an "adverse employment action" defeats a claim under § 2000e-2(a)(2). It ruled that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2) requires only that the transfer had a "tendency to deprive a person of employment opportunities," but concluded that there was "[n]o evidence" in the record to make the requisite showing in this case. Id. EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc ., No. 15-3201 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017), reh'g en banc denied (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017).
• In June 2013, the largest and oldest adult entertainment strip club in Jackson, MS paid $50,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging that it discriminated against Black dancers when it maintained schedules only for Black women and forced them to compete for dancing slots on the "Black shift." The lawsuit also alleged that the club retaliated against the Black dancers after one of them filed a complaint with the EEOC, allegedly by reducing their work hours and subjecting them to fines, forcing one of them to quit. Under the consent decree, the club will implement new policies and practices designed to prevent racial discrimination and retaliation. It also will conduct supervisor and employee training on discrimination and retaliation laws and establish a confidential process for people to submit discrimination and retaliation complaints. The process will include employer protections of non-retaliation and requirements for a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation. EEOC officials said Danny's will also post notices at the work site, including EEOC on new allegations of race discrimination and retaliation during the two-year period. EEOC v. Danny's Cabaret, No. 3:10-cv-00681 (S.D. Miss. consent decree filed June 28, 2013). In May 2013, the EEOC sued Clarksdale's Stone Pony Pizza, alleging that the pizza place maintains a racially segregated workforce, and that it "hired only whites for front-of-the-house positions such as server, hostess, waitress, and bartender, and hired African-Americans for back-of-the-house positions such as cook and dishwasher." EEOC v. Stone Pony Pizza, Inc. , No. 4:13-cv-92(SA)(JMV) (N.D. Miss. reopened after dismissal due to bankruptcy Mar. 30, 2015).
• In November 2011, a hospital on Chicago's South Side agreed to pay $80,000 to settle a class race, sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the Commission's lawsuit, the hospital allegedly subjected a class of Black female employees to different terms and conditions of employment and segregation in job assignments because of their race. The suit also alleged that at least one of the women was demoted in retaliation for opposing and complaining about unlawful employment practices. Further, the agency's administrative investigation revealed that numerous Black female medical technicians at the hospital appear to have been required to perform assignments that their male Asian-Indian counterparts were allegedly not required to perform. The two-year consent decree resolving the case enjoins the hospital from engaging in further race and/or sex discrimination or retaliation. The consent decree also requires that the hospital provide training to all employees, including supervisory employees, in its Cardiopulmonary Department; that it submit periodic reports to EEOC about any complaints of sex and/or race discrimination or retaliation; and that it post a notice at various locations within its facility regarding the outcome of this lawsuit. EEOC v. Jackson Park Hosp. & Med. Ctr., No. 11 C 04743 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2011).
• In September 2010, the owner of a strip club settled for $95,000 a race discrimination lawsuit, alleging that two African-American doormen were harassed, segregated and provided different terms and conditions of employment because of their race. The managers of the club used racial slurs when speaking of and to the doormen, forced them to work in the back of the club instead of at the entrance, and complained that "black music makes the club look bad." In addition to the monetary damages, the 30-month consent decree provided injunctive relief, required the company to post a notice about the settlement, and obligated the company to conduct anti-discrimination training and to report race discrimination complaints. EEOC v. Papermoon-Stuart, Inc. , No. 0:09-cv-14316 (S.D. Fla. settled September 28, 2010) .
• In September 2010, the EEOC commenced a lawsuit against a giant shipping and delivery service for subjecting a class of African-American employees to different job assignments because of their race. The EEOC's administrative investigation found that African-American drivers were assigned to predominately Black neighborhoods and White drivers to White neighborhoods. Furthermore, the investigation revealed that African-American employees were assigned to more difficult and dangerous work than Caucasian employees. EEOC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc. , No. 1:10-cv-06139 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 24, 2010) .
• In June 2010, EEOC and an Atlanta home builder settled for $378,500 a suit alleging the company unlawfully discriminated by assigning Black sales employees to neighborhoods based on race, failing to promote African Americans or women to management, and harassing an employee who complained. EEOC v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods Inc. , No. 1-09-CV-1151 (N.D. Ga. consent decree approved June 22, 2010).
• In September 2009, a supply company in Arizona agreed to pay $49,500 to settle an EEOC lawsuit that alleged the company assigned an African American employee and his Hispanic team member to less desirable, lower-paying jobs than their Caucasian counterparts because of the Black employee's race. Additionally, the lawsuit alleged that the supervisor responsible for determining job assignments used racial slurs such as "pinche negro," the n-word, and other racially derogatory comments to refer to the Black employee. The consent decree enjoins the company from engaging in racial discrimination. Additionally, the decree requires the company to implement and post written anti-discrimination policies and procedures, to provide training on race discrimination for all personnel and neutral references for the claimants, and to report to the EEOC any changes to its anti-discrimination policies and any future complaints alleging racial discrimination. EEOC v. L&W Supply Co. , Case No. 2:07-cv-01364-JWS (D. Ariz. settled Sept. 2, 2009) .
• In June 2009, a federal district court granted summary judgment for a Michigan-based freight and trucking company on all race discrimination claims asserted by the EEOC and the claimant. EEOC had alleged that the company refused to hire a Black female applicant for a part-time customer service position, even after she was designated best qualified and had passed the requisite drug test. According to the lawsuit, the company's regional manager vetoed her hire because he was concerned about a Black customer service representative working with customers and drivers in southeast Missouri. On September 22, 2010, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court on all federal law claims and remanded the claimant's state law claim. On January 7, 2011, the district court dismissed the claimant's state law claim without prejudice ' EEOC v. Con-way Freight, Inc. , No. 4:07-cv-01638 (E.D. Mo. June 17, 2009) .
• In May 2009 a North Carolina-based restaurant entered a three-year consent decree to pay $14,700 and provide a positive letter of reference for the claimant. The EEOC had alleged that the restaurant refused to hire an African American employee for a bartender position because of his race. According to the complaint, the Black employee sought and was qualified for the bartender position, but the restaurant hired him as a server and refused to place him in the bartender position on several occasions when it became available. Evidence indicated that the restaurant had a practice of hiring only White people as bartenders. Eventually, the Black employee resigned because he believed he would never be placed in the bartender position. . The consent decree enjoins the restaurant from discriminating based on race in hiring or promotion into the bartender position, requires the restaurant to adopt a written anti-discrimination policy, provide Title VII training to all managers and supervisors, keep records related to any future complaints alleging racial discrimination in hiring or promotion, and submit reports to the EEOC. The restaurant must also keep records on the hiring of and promotion into the bartender position. EEOC v. Chelda, Inc. and Charmike Holdings, LLC, dba Ham's Restaurant , Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00236 (W.D.N.C. May 12, 2009) .
• In March 2008, a national restaurant chain entered a consent decree agreeing to pay $30,000 to resolve an EEOC case charging that the company gave African-American food servers inferior and lesser-paying job assignments by denying them assignments of larger parties with greater resulting tips and income, by denying them better paying assignments to banquets at the restaurant, and by failing on some occasions to give them assignments to any customers. The consent decree enjoins the restaurant from engaging in racial discrimination and requires the chain to post a remedial notice and amend and distribute its anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies. The amended policies must state that prohibited racial discrimination in "all other employment decisions" includes, but is not limited to, making decisions and providing terms and conditions of employment such as pay, assignments, working conditions, and job duties; also, it must prohibit retaliation. In addition, the company must revise its complaint mechanism and clarify and expand its website and toll-free phone number for the reporting of incidents of employment discrimination. The consent decree also requires the restaurant to provide training in equal employment opportunity laws for all of its employees and to appoint an Equal Employment Office Coordinator, who will be responsible for investigating discrimination complaints. EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick's Restaurant Corp , No. 06-cv-7806 (S.D.N.Y. March 17, 2008) .
• In January 2008, a bakery café franchise in Florida entered a two-year consent decree that enjoined the company from engaging in racial discrimination or retaliation and required it to pay $101,000 to the claimants. EEOC had alleged that the company segregated the Black employees from non-Black employees and illegally fired a class of Black employees in violation of Title VII. Under the consent decree, the principal of the company must attend an eight-hour training session on equal employment opportunity laws. The decree also mandated that if the company ever re-opens the franchise in question or any other store, it must distribute its anti-discrimination policy to all employees, post a remedial notice, and report any future complaints alleging race-based discrimination. EEOC v. Atlanta Bread Co., International and ARO Enterprise of Miami, Inc. , No. 06-cv-61484 (S.D. Fla. January 4, 2008) .
• In July 2007, EEOC and Walgreens agreed to a proposed settlement of $20 million to resolve allegations that the Illinois-based national drug store chain engaged in systemic race discrimination against African American retail management and pharmacy employees in promotion, compensation and assignment. In addition to the monetary relief for an estimated 10,000 class members, the consent decree prohibits store assignments based on race. EEOC v. Walgreen Co. , No. 07-CV-172-GPM; Tucker v. Walgreen Co . No. 05-CV-440-GPM (S.D. Ill. July 12, 2007).
• In March 2007, the owners of a Louisiana motel agreed to pay $140,000 to charging party and three other claimants who alleged that the motel would not hire them for front-desk positions because they are African American. The company also agreed not to exclude any African American employee or applicant for the front-desk day positions based on their race for any future businesses it may operate. The consent decree further requires it to maintain a complaint procedure to encourage employees to file internal good faith complaints regarding race discrimination and retaliation. United States v. Sunrise Hospitality BC-II LLC, No. 5:06cv1684 (W.D. La., consent decree entered Mar. 27, 2007).
• In April 2006, EEOC obtained $450,000 to settle a race discrimination case in which a health care provider explained its refusal to hire "Blacks or Jews" for a client in Oregon by arguing that it was protecting the safety of its employees, especially in areas where the KKK is active. EEOC v. Health Help, Inc., 03-1204 PHX RGS (D. Ariz. Apr. 2006).
• In February 2020, the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operation (OFO) found that the Department of Veteran Affairs engaged in race and age discrimination when it did not select a Registered Nurse (RN) at the Murfreesboro VA Medical Center facility in Tennessee for the position of Nurse Manager, Specialty Clinics.  According to OFO, the Agency investigated the claim which produced evidence in support of the allegation. After screening qualified candidates using a “Best Qualified” (BQ) grid, the primary panel interviewed the five highest-scoring candidates, including Complainant. Selectee failed to pass the BQ screening and was not interviewed. After the interviews, the panel selected Complainant. Complainant had approximately 30 years’ experience as an RN, supervisor, assistant director, and manager. Selectee possessed the basic qualifications and had served as Acting Nurse Manager for a few months.  The Selection Official, however, rejected Complainant, noting she was the second-ranked candidate, and the top-ranked candidate, also an African-American, and directed the panel to re-interview the candidates. The Associate Director emailed the panel chair and Selection Official, asking that the panel interview Selectee “as a professional courtesy.” The BQ grid results were disregarded and all candidates were rated and ranked based solely on interview scores. Based on interview scores, Selectee was chosen. OFO found that the elimination of objective “Best Qualified” criteria in favor of rating and ranking candidates based solely on interviews was the creation of a deliberately subjective selection process that was highly suggestive of pre-selection and unlawful discrimination. OFO rejected the Agency’s explanation that the BQ scoring grid failed to consider years of nursing experience within specialty care clinics, noting that Selectee was considerably less experienced than Complainant. OFO found that the Agency’s explanation was a pretext for its unlawful discrimination in the selection process and the Agency had failed to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. OFO ordered the Agency to promote Complainant and pay back pay with interest and benefits, investigate and determine her entitlement to compensatory damages, and consider disciplining and provide EEO training to the responsible management officials. A posting notice and attorney’s fees were also ordered. Arleen L. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), EEOC Appeal No. 2019002725 (February 4, 2020).
• In January 2018, the EEOC reversed an agency’s decision, holding on appeal that an African-American Senior Officer Specialist (SOS), GS-8, at the  Department of Justice’s Low Security Correctional Institution (LSCI) in North Carolina had been subjected the SOS to disparate treatment regarding promotions.  According to evidence in the record, management denied the SOS the opportunity to the attend trainings necessary for promotion into a Security Officer Locksmith (SOL), citing budgetary reasons.  Meanwhile, in the same timeframe, management approved such training for two similarly situated White officers who were eventually promoted to SOL.  The Commission noted that several witnesses subscribed to Complainant’s view that management intentionally foreclosed minorities from career advancement.  The EEOC did not find that the SOS had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment even though he averred that while he and another African-American coworker were working, a Caucasian Officer reportedly said to them as they were walking away, “See you, boys,” and said to Complainant on another occasion, “See you tomorrow boy.” To remedy the discrimination, the Commission ordered the Agency to provide Complainant the trainings at issue, and to noncompetitively promote him in a similar fashion to the two cited Caucasian comparators . Nathan S. v. Dep’t of Justice , EEOC Appeal No. 0120151282 (Jan. 9, 2018).
• In November 2017, the EEOC reversed the Department of Homeland Security's (Agency) finding of no race discrimination on the Complainant's allegation that the Agency discriminated against him based on race when it issued him Letters of Counseling for unprofessional conduct and missing a duty call. In reversing the Agency's decision finding no discrimination, the Commission found that the issuances of the disciplinary actions giving rise to these claims was motivated by discriminatory animus based on Complainant's race. Specifically, the Commission found that the discipline issued was disproportionate and lacked uniformity, and the record showed that other employees were not disciplined for engaging in similar conduct. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to rescind the Letters and remove them from Complainant's personnel record, as well as adjust any subsequent discipline that was based on the Letters. The Commission affirmed the Agency's finding of no discrimination with respect to other matters raised in the complaint. Erwin B. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec ., EEOC Appeal No. 0120151276 (May 15, 2017), request for reconsideration denied EEOC Request No. 0520170446 (Nov. 3, 2017).
• In August 2017, the EEOC affirmed an Administrative Judge's finding that the Department of Defense (Agency) had discriminated against Complainant when it did not select him for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge position. Following a hearing, the AJ found that the Agency failed to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Complainant's non-selection. While the Agency asserted that Complainant was not promoted because he did not pass an annual physical fitness exam, Agency managers testified that the supervisory position would involve more administrative work than Complainant's position and there would not be a substantial change in the physical requirements. Further, the AJ noted that the selection criteria was changed for one candidate who did not meet the requirements but not for Complainant. Complainant also stated that the Director, who was extensively involved in the selection yet did not testify at the hearing, made several comments that revealed a discriminatory intent. The AJ questioned the Director's credibility, finding that there were considerable gaps in the Director's statements. The Commission affirmed the AJ's findings on appeal, and noted that even if the Agency met its burden of providing a legitimate reason for Complainant's non-selection, the evidence supported a finding of pretext. Specifically, Complainant was considered the best candidate by his second-level supervisor, and the record showed that Complainant was better qualified than the selectee. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to place Complainant into the position or a similar position, with appropriate back pay and benefits, and pay him proven compensatory damages. Kenny C. v. Dep't of Def ., EEOC Appeal No. 0720150030 (Aug. 29, 2017).
• In March 2017, the EEOC settled its contempt action against Baby O's Restaurant, dba Danny's Downtown, a Jackson-based provider of adult entertainment services. The contempt action charged that Danny's breached the terms of an agreement it entered into with the EEOC to resolve a racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Danny's subjected four African-American females to unlawful race discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC charged that Black entertainers were subjected to a variety of less advantageous terms and conditions of employment than White ones. The misconduct included subjecting African-American entertainers to arbitrary fees and fines, forcing them to work on less lucrative shifts, and excluding them from company advertisements, all because of their race. The EEOC also charged that Danny's retaliated against the entertainers by reducing their work hours when one of them engaged in activity protected by law, including filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC. The EEOC alleged the retaliation was so severe that one of the entertainers was forced to leave her employment. In June 2013, the company entered into a consent decree agreeing to pay $50,000 in relief to the Black females who had been subjected to the racial discrimination and retaliation. The decree also provided for significant injunctive relief, including revising the company's anti-discrimination policy; promulgating and disseminating it to employees; providing a copy of that policy to the EEOC; providing mandatory Title VII training to supervisory and non-supervisory employees and entertainers; making periodic reports of its compliance to the EEOC; and posting a notice the policy in its workplace. After paying the $50,000, Danny's failed to comply with the rest of the decree. The Commission filed a contempt action, and on March 2, 2017, the court approved an amended consent decree that extended the injunctive requirements of the decree by one year. EEOC v. Baby O's Restaurant dba Danny's Downtown , Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-681-DPF-FKB (SD. Miss. Mar. 2, 2017).
• In December 2016, a south Alabama steel manufacturing plant agreed to pay $150,000 as part of a three-year consent decree to resolve an EEOC lawsuit. In June 2015, EEOC filed a lawsuit accusing Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC of not promoting workers at its Calvert plant because of their race. The Commission said certain Black workers were highly qualified to become Team Leaders, but the company hired White applicants who were less qualified for the job. In addition to the $150,000 payment, Outokumpu agrees to take specified actions designed to prevent future discrimination, including implementing new policies and practices designed to prevent race discrimination in employment decisions, providing anti-discrimination training to employees, and the posting of anti-discrimination notices in its workplace. EEOC v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC , No. 1:13-cv-00473-WS-N (S.D. Ala. Dec. 2016).
• In June 2015, Dollar General Corporation paid $32,500 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Dollar General refused on at least three separate occasions to promote a Black employee to a vacant assistant store manager position at its Long Beach, Miss., store because of her race. The EEOC alleged that she had expressed interest in promotion and had substantial qualifications, but Dollar General instead hired less-qualified white applicants. The suit further alleged that Dollar General subjected the Black employee to increasing hostility and discipline after she complained about the unequal treatment. The company denied the allegations in court. The court denied Dollar General's motion for summary judgment and the parties ultimately entered a two-year consent decree requiring Dollar General to maintain effective anti-discrimination policies, distribute the policies to all newly hired employees, and provide management training on anti-discrimination laws and other injunctive relief to ensure discrimination complaints are promptly reported and investigated. EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General , No. 1: 13-cv-00383-LG-JCG (S.D. Miss. June 11, 2015).
• In July 2014, the apprenticeship school affiliated with a New Jersey construction trade union will pay $34,500 and provide substantial remedial relief to settle a discrimination claim by the EEOC, alleging that the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee of Sheet Metal Workers Local 25 discharged a Black apprentice because of his race just two weeks before he was to graduate from the four-year apprenticeship program. The EEOC's findings arose from its investigation of the apprentice's appeal of his dismissal, which he filed with the court-appointed special master who monitors Local 25 and its JATC pursuant to past judicial findings of race and national origin discrimination. According to the EEOC, the JATC violated the court's previous orders by summarily discharging the apprentice for alleged poor perform­ance just days before he was to complete the program and be promoted to journeyman status. The JATC imposed this severe sanction despite the apprentice satisfactorily completing virtually the entire eight-term program and despite his complaints about inadequate on-the-job training from biased contractors. EEOC v. Day & Zimmerman NPS, Inc. , No. 1:71-cv-02877(LAK)(MHD) (S.D.N.Y. consent decree filed July 11, 2014).
• In March 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the EEOC presented sufficient evidence that two African American railroad workers were disciplined more harshly for workplace rule violations than comparable White employees to raise a jury issue of race discrimination under Title VII. In a 2-1 decision partially overturning a federal trial court in Louisiana, the divided panel found that EEOC established a prima facie case of "work-rule" discrimination against Kansas City Southern Railway Co. on behalf of two of the four claimants. In short, the appellate court found that a train engineer and a train conductor, both African American, were fired following separate incidents involving operational errors while White employees involved in the same incidents were not disciplined or were dismissed but reinstated despite committing comparable infractions. Turner v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co. , No. 09-30558 (5th Cir. revised opinion Mar. 26, 2012).
• In May 2011, a property and casualty insurance giant agreed to pay $110,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging that it unlawfully refused to promote an Asian employee in its Milwaukee underwriting office because of her race. The suit further asserted that the insurance company illegally retaliated against the employee by passing her over for job openings after she filed a discrimination charge with EEOC. EEOC v. Fed. Ins. Co., d/b/a Chubb & Son , Case No. 2:10-cv-00849 (E.D. Wis. settled May 3, 2011) .
• In November 2010, a company which transports saltwater from oil wells and has facilities in Quitman, Arizona settled for $75,000 the EEOC's lawsuit alleging that it subjected a Black truck driver and another Black employee at its Quitman location to racial harassment, which included racial jokes and racially derogatory language (e.g., "nigger"); gave them fewer work assignments than White employees because of their race; and further reduced the driver's work assignments because of his complaints about racial discrimination and suspended and discharged him because of his race and his complaints about racial discrimination. The driver complained about the racial jokes and language to management but was suspended for 4 days following a dispute about a work assignment, and was discharged during the suspension. The 5-year consent decree, inter alia , enjoins the company from subjecting Black employees to disparate working assignments based on race and from suspending and terminating employees in retaliation for opposing practices unlawful under Title VII or for participating in Title VII proceedings. The company is also required to provide training for its employees on reporting and investigating race discrimination and race harassment complaints. EEOC v. Complete Vacuum and Rental, Inc. , No. 1:09-cv-00049-SWW (E.D. Ark. Nov. 8, 2010) .
• In January 2012, a Henderson, Nevada-based chain of automotive dealerships agreed to pay $150,000 to two Black employees to settle a Title VII lawsuit alleging that the company violated federal law by engaging in discrimination, harassment and retaliation. According to the EEOC, a parts department manager, who is White, allegedly used the "N-word" to refer to at least two Black employees and made racially derogatory comments and jokes on a near daily basis at the dealership. The same manager allegedly referred to one Black employee as "gorilla" while the employee was holding a banana. The EEOC contended that the manager also imposed stricter work-related rules upon the dealership's Black employees by disciplining them for conduct that non-Black employees were not disciplined for, and giving them less favorable work assignments. Ultimately, both Black employees were terminated, but the EEOC asserted that one of the employees was discharged for an infraction for which non-Black employees were not disciplined, while the other was discharged after relaying his intention to file a charge of discrimination to the company. In addition to the monetary relief, the company agreed to distribute a revised discrimination and complaint policy and hire an employment consultant. EEOC v. Shack-Findlay Automotive, LLC d/b/a Findlay Honda and Findlay Automotive Group, Inc. , Case No. 2:10-cv-01692-KJD-RJJ (D. Nev. Jan. 17, 2012) .
• In June 2010, a Warren, Mich., automotive supplier paid $190,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in which the EEOC alleged that the supplier repeatedly overlooked qualified non-White employees, including a group of Black employees and a Bangladeshi employee, for promotions to the maintenance department. In addition, a White employee who opposed this type of race discrimination and complained that managers in the maintenance department were using racial slurs allegedly was fired shortly after the company learned of his complaints. EEOC v. Noble Metal Processing, Inc. , No. 2:08-CV-14713 (E.D. Mich. press release filed June 8, 2010).
• In March 2010, the EEOC upheld an Administrative Judge's determination that a federal agency discriminated against a Black employee on the basis of race when it terminated the complainant's participation in a training program. The record showed that complainant was not rated as "marginal" and that the Manager who made the decision to terminate complainant conceded that complainant passed all required tests. Further, the Manger did not consult with the instructors before making the decision, but instead relied upon one individual who was clearly hostile toward complainant and who the AJ found was not credible. Additionally, the environment was not favorable to Black recruits. Two witnesses testified that they heard someone remark "one down and two to go" when complainant turned in his equipment following his termination. At that time, there were only three Black students in the 31-person class. One week before the class was to graduate, the third and last Black student was removed from the program. The record also revealed that it was the agency's policy to afford remedial training and an opportunity to correct behavior before removing candidates from the training program. The record indicated that the policy was followed with respect to White comparatives, but was not followed in complainant's case. The agency was ordered to, among other things, offer complainant reinstatement into the next training program, with back pay. Thalamus Jones v. United States Department of Energy , EEOC Appeal No. 0720090045 (March 5, 2010).
• In January 2010, an international designer and manufacturer of medical devices agreed to pay $250,000 to settle EEOC's Title VII lawsuit alleging race discrimination. The suit alleged that the manufacturer subjected a Black full-time sales representative to different terms and conditions of employment when it removed him from top accounts, assigned him to poorer producing accounts, and then terminated him even though he continued to perform successfully, while failing to discharge any of the poorer performing White sales executives. The 2-year consent decree also requires the manufacturer to rehire the Black sales rep in its North Texas District at a higher salary with 3% commissions and relocation expenses up to $15,000. EEOC v. Linvatech Corp. d/b/a Conmed Linvatech , No. 09-2158 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2010) .
• In December 2009, a Tennessee company that processes nuclear waste agreed to settle claims by the EEOC that Black employees were subjected to higher levels of radiation than others. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that, in addition to paying them less and permitting a White manager to refer regularly to them with the N-word and other derogatory slurs, such as "boy," the company manipulated dosimeters of Black employees assigned to work with radioactive waste to show lower levels of radiation than the actual ones. Under the agreement, 23 Black employees will receive $650,000. EEOC v. Race, LLC, doing business as Studsvik, LLC , Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-2620 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 2009).
• In June 2009, the EEOC overturned an AJ's finding of no discrimination in a Title VII race discrimination case. Complainant alleged he was discriminated against on the bases of race (African-American) and retaliation when he was not selected for an of four vacant Risk Management Specialist positions. Complainant applied for the position, was rated as qualified, interviewed for the position, and was not selected. All four of the selectees were White. The agency found no discrimination and complainant appealed. The Commission found that the agency failed to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the non-selection. The agency stated that the selectees were chosen because their skills and qualifications fit the agency's needs. The Commission found that the agency's reasons were not sufficiently clear so that complainant could be given a fair opportunity to rebut such reasons. The Commission also noted that the agency did not produce any rating sheets from the interview panel, and that complainant appeared to possess similar qualifications to the other selectees. Thus, the Commission found that the prima facie case and complainant's qualifications, combined with the agency's failure to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for complainant's non-selection, warranted a finding of race discrimination. Because of this finding, the decision found it unnecessary to address the basis of retaliation. As remedies, the agency was ordered to place complainant into the Risk Management Specialist position with back pay and consideration of compensatory damages, EEO training to responsible agency officials, consideration of discipline for responsible agency officials, attorneys fees order, and posting notice. Frazier v. United States Department of Agriculture , EEOC Appeals No. 0120083270 (June 4, 2009).
• In August 2009, a Washington Park, Ill., packaging and warehousing company agreed to pay $57,500 and provide training to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit alleging that the company failed to provide a Black employee the pay raise and health insurance coverage provided to his White co-workers, and then fired him in retaliation for filing a charge of race discrim­ination with the EEOC. EEOC v. Material Resources, LLC, d/b/a Gateway Co-Packing Co. , No. 3:08-245-MJR (S.D. Ill. August 14, 2009).
• In January 2008, the EEOC settled a race and national origin discrimination case against a Nevada U-Haul company for $153,000. The EEOC had charged that the company subjected Hispanic and Asian/Filipino employees to derogatory comments and slurs based on their race and/or national origin. Hispanic employees also were subjected to comments such as "go back to Mexico." In addition, Filipino mechanics were denied promotions while less qualified White employees were promoted. The EEOC also charged that Hispanic and Filipino employees were told they had to be "White to get ahead" at the company. As part of the injunctive relief, U-Haul further agreed to provide training to all employees in its Nevada locations, and provide annual reports to the EEOC regarding its employment practices in its Nevada branches. EEOC v. U-Haul Company of Nevada , Case No. 2:06-CV-01209-JCM-LRL(D.Nev. settled Jan. 28,  2008).
• In May 2008, in New Capital Dimensions case the EEOC resolved a race discrimination and retaliation suit against a North Georgia restaurant chain for $135,000. The lawsuit alleged that a White male store manager ordered all the African American employees to be strip-searched in response to a White cashier's drawer turning up $100 short. When advised about the missing money by the store manager, the White cashier asserted she knew nothing about it and was permitted to leave without being searched. When the Black employees complained about the discriminatory treatment, the manager fired them. The consent decree also includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting, and posting of anti-discrimination notices. EEOC v. New Capital Dimensions, Inc., dba Krystal Restaurant 2:08-cv-00089-RWS (N.D. Ga. Settled May 21, 2008).
• In September 2007, the Commission upheld an AJ's determination that complainant was discriminated against on the bases of race (Asian American), national origin (Japanese), sex (female), and/or in retaliation for prior EEO activity when: (1) she received an unsatisfactory interim performance rating; (2) she was demoted from her GS-14 Section Chief position; and (3) management's actions created and allowed a hostile work environment. The agency was ordered to restore leave; pay complainant $50,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages and $6,944.00 in pecuniary compensatory damages; and pay $45,517.50 in attorney's fees and $786.39 for costs. Sugawara-Adams v. EPA, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070050 (Sep. 10, 2007).
• In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit agreed in part with EEOC's amicus argument that a district court improperly granted summary judgment against a Black rehabilitation aide because she presented sufficient evidence - whether categorized as "direct" or "circumstantial" - that race was a factor motivating her employer's decision not to promote her. This evidence included a White manager's statement that if the Black recommending official hired the Black aide based on her the strength of her interview and her demonstrated ability to interact and work one-on-one with clients, "people are going to think" nonetheless that she was selected "because she was Black." The manager hired a White candidate with more seniority. On appeal, the circuit court decided that "the subject of race was improperly introduced into the selection process and used as a consideration in [the] hiring decision" and that the manager's decision was motivated by the aide's race and not the selectee's experience or seniority. The court then reversed summary judgment and remanded the case for trial. Brewer v. Cedar Lake Lodge, Inc. , No. 06-6327 (6th Cir. July 31, 2007) (unpublished opinion).
• In September 2006, EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that a nonprofit organization that provides rehabilitation services for people with disabilities discriminated against four African-American employees because of their race (delayed promotion, unfair discipline, and termination) and retaliated against three of them for complaining about racially disparate working conditions, reduction of working hours, discipline, and termination. Under the 3-year consent decree, four Black employees will share $400,000 in monetary relief and the organization will increase one Black employee's hours to no less than 20 per week to restore her eligibility for various employment benefits. EEOC v. Richmond of New York d/b/a Richmond Children's Center, No. 05-CV-8342 (SCR)(MDF) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2006).
• In February 2006, the Commission settled for $275,000 a Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, an aviation services company, subjected Charging Party to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, discipline, and demotion based on race, Black. After six years as a line service technician, defendant promoted Charging Party to supervisor. Defendant did not announce the promotion until two months after Charging Party had begun the new job and did not issue Charging Party a cell telephone or a company e-mail address during his tenure in the position. In contrast, defendant announced the promotion of Charging Party's White successor within three days and issued him a cell telephone and a company e-mail address immediately. Just 4½ months after promoting Charging Party, defendant reprimanded him and demoted him. EEOC v. Signature Flight Support Corp. , No. C 05 1101 CW (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2006).
• In May 2005, the EEOC obtained a $500,000 settlement against a nursing facility in Puyallup, Washington for alleged violations of Title VII, which included the all-White care management team preparing a care plan incorporating a White family's request that no "colored girls" work with the resident; tolerating frequent use of racial slurs, including reference to a Black nurse as a "slave;" assigning Black nurses to the night shift, while giving White nurses the more desirable day shifts; assigning Black and White employees to separate lunchtimes and lunchrooms; and twice-denying a Black nurse a promotion a staffing position for which she had several years of experience and was highly qualified. EEOC v. Central Park Lodges Long Term Care, Inc., d/b/a Linden Grove Health Care Center , No. 04-5627 RBL (W.D. Wash. consent decree filed May 13, 2005).
• In January 2020, Jackson National Life Insurance paid Black female employees in Denver and Nashville $20.5 million to settle a racial and sexual discrimination case brought by EEOC’s Denver and Phoenix offices.  Twenty-one employees filed an EEOC complaint about receiving less pay than their white colleagues, being passed over for promotions, being subjected to sexual harassment and referred to by slurs, including “lazy” and “streetwalkers.” In addition to the payout, the deal requires Jackson to take steps to prevent future race- and sex-based harassment, including designating an internal compliance monitor and hiring a consultant to review its policies. EEOC v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company , Civil Action No. 16-cv-02472-PAB-SKC (D. Colo. Jan. 9, 2020).
• In May 2019, a Mississippi federal court jury yesterday returned a verdict in favor of the EEOC and five Black dancers who were subjected to egregious race discrimination while employed by Danny's of Jackson, LLC (Danny's), doing business as Danny's Downtown Cabaret, a Jackson, Mississippi night club. The verdicts included $1.5 million in punitive damages $1.68 million in compensatory damages, and $130,550 in backpay. According to the EEOC, Danny's, and its predecessor, Baby O's Restaurant, subjected Black dancers to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment for years, including limiting the number of shifts Black dancers could work, and subjecting them to racially offensive epithets. The jury found that Danny's also forced the dancers to work at a related club, Black Diamonds, even though they were subject to arrest there because they were not licensed to work at that club. The pay and working conditions at Black Diamonds were inferior to those at Danny's, and there was less security there. The dancers who refused to work at Black Diamonds were fined and sent home, and not allowed to work at Danny's. Despite at least eight years of efforts by the EEOC, which included two EEOC charges, three prior lawsuits and contempt proceedings and three consent decrees Danny's continued to discriminate against the dancers. EEOC v. Danny's Restaurant, LLC and Danny's of Jackson, LLC f/k/a Baby O's Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a  Danny's Downtown Cabaret , Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-00769-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss. May 2019). 
• In August 2015, the district court denied a motion to dismiss by J&R Baker Farms LLC and J&R Baker Farms Partnership in a lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The EEOC had alleged that the Farms subjected American workers, most of whom were African American, to discrimination based on national origin and race at their Colquitt County location. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the employer favored foreign born workers or workers they believed to be foreign born, while engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against White American and African American workers. The agency alleges that all American workers were discriminatorily discharged, subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, and provided fewer work opportunities, based on their national origin and/or race. Regarding the disparate terms and conditions, the agency alleges that work start times were habitually delayed for White American and African American workers, that they were sent home early while foreign workers continued to work, and that they were subjected to production standards not imposed on foreign born workers. These practices led to all American workers receiving less pay than their foreign born counterparts. EEOC v. J&R Baker Farms LLC, et. al , No. 7:14-CV-136 (M.D. Ga. dismissal order filed Aug. 11, 2015).
• In December 2012, Hamilton Growers, Inc., doing business as Southern Valley Fruit and Vegetable, Inc., an agricultural farm in Norman Park, Ga., agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of American seasonal workers - many of them African-American - who, the EEOC alleged, were subjected to discrimination based on their national origin and/or race, the agency announced today. The agreement resolves a lawsuit filed by the EEOC in September 2011. The EEOC's suit had charged that the company unlawfully engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against American workers by firing virtually all American workers while retaining workers from Mexico during the 2009, 2010 and 2011 growing seasons. The agency also alleged that Hamilton Growers fired at least 16 African-American workers in 2009 based on race and/or national origin as their termination was coupled with race-based comments by a management official; . provided lesser job opportunities to American workers by assigning them to pick vegetables in fields which had already been picked by foreign workers, which resulted in Americans earning less pay than their Mexican counterparts; and regularly subjected American workers to different terms and conditions of employment, including delayed starting times and early stop times, or denied the opportunity to work at all, while Mexican workers were allowed to continue working. The settlement provides monetary relief to 19 persons who filed charges with the agency and other American workers harmed by the practices. Additionally, Hamilton Growers agreed to exercise good faith in hiring and retaining qualified workers of American national origin and African-American workers for all farm work positions, including supervisory positions; will implement non-discriminatory hiring measures, which include targeted recruitment and advertising, appointment of a compliance official, and training for positive equal employment opportunity management practices; will create a termination appeal process; extend rehire offers to aggrieved individuals from the 2009-2012 growing seasons; provide transportation for American workers; and limit contact between the alleged discriminating management officials and American workers. The decree also provides for posting anti-discrimination notices, record-keeping and reporting to the EEOC. EEOC v. Hamilton Growers, Inc. , Civil Action No. 7:11-CV-00134-HL (N.D. Ga. settlement announced Dec. 13, 2012).
• In August 2011, an Obion County producer of pork sausage products paid $60,000 and furnished other relief to settle a wage discrimination and racial harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that near Union City violated federal law by paying an African-American maintenance worker less than White counterparts and subjecting him to a hostile work environment. The EEOC asserted that Williams Country Sausage gave raises and paid higher salaries to all maintenance department employees except the department's lone African-American employee and allegedly allowed a supervisor to regularly use racially offensive language toward the employee because of racial animus. The five-year consent decree enjoins the sausage company from engaging in future race discrimination, and requires annual Title VII training on employee rights, record-keeping of racial harassment complaints, and annual reports to the EEOC. The decree also requires the company to establish and enforce a written policy that will ensure that employees are protected from discrimination. EEOC v. Williams Country Sausage , Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-01263 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 11, 2011).
• In April 2011, the EEOC and a Bedford, Ohio, auto dealership reached a $300,000 settlement of a case alleging that the dealership permitted a general manager to harass Black employees and also discriminated against Black sales employees with regard to pay. EEOC v. Ganley Lincoln of Bedford Inc. , No. 1:07-cv-2829 (N.D. Ohio consent decree entered Apr. 19, 2011).
• In March 2011, EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that a provider of preventive maintenance for residential and commercial heating and air conditioning systems, which has approximately 247 employees at 13 locations within Florida, Georgia, the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia and Maryland, violated federal law by discriminating against non-Caucasian employees based on their race when it paid them less than their Caucasian colleagues. Additionally, the EEOC alleged that an African-American telemarketer was paid less than a Caucasian telemarketer in a substantially similar job. Despite complaining to management, the African-American employee's compensation remained the same until she resigned. EEOC v. United Air Temp / Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. , Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-281 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 21, 2011) .
• In March 2011, a television station settled a race and sex discrimination case filed by the EEOC for $45,000 and additional consideration. From 1996 to 2007, an African-American female reporter was paid lower wages than a comparable White female reporter and male reporters of all races. She was also subjected to unequal terms and conditions of employment. In addition to the damages, the station must post an anti-discrimination notice, publicize an anti-discrimination policy, and provide annual race and sex discrimination training to its employees. EEOC, et al. v. KOKH , No. 5:07-cv-01043-D (W.D. Okla. March 4, 2011) .
• In September 2010, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against a Union City, Tenn., pork company, alleging that the company engaged in race discrimination by paying an African-American maintenance worker less than non-Black employees, subjecting him to a hostile work environment, and forcing him out of his job. According to EEOC's complaint, the company gave raises and paid higher salaries to all maintenance department employees except the department's lone African-American employee because of racial animus and allowed a supervisor to regularly use racially offensive language toward the Black employee, causing the employee to quit his job to escape the abuse. EEOC v. Williams Country Sausage Co. , Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01263 (W.D. Tenn. filed Sept. 30, 2010) .
• In November 2009, a nationwide supplier of office products and services entered into an 18-month consent decree, agreeing to pay $80,000 to an African American account manager who EEOC alleged was denied appropriate wages because of his race. According to EEOC's lawsuit, the complainant was hired as a junior account manager in the supplier's Baton Rouge, Louisiana office with an annual salary of $32,500, plus commissions. At the time of his hire, complainant was told that after 6 to 8 months, he would be promoted to account manager with an increase in his base salary. The supplier promoted complainant, but did not increase his base salary. The salary of the complainant, the only African American account manager in his region, was never increased despite good performance or even when he assumed the accounts of two White employees who left the company. The complainant resigned and was replaced by a White junior account manager who earned a higher base salary than complainant had ever earned as an account manager. Under the decree, the supplier will provide web-based training to all employees at its Baton Rouge and Harahan, Louisiana offices on Title VII and defendant's antidiscrimination policies and complaint reporting procedures. The supplier also will maintain policies and procedures prohibiting race discrimination and wage disparities based on race, which will include investigation procedures and contact information for reporting complaints. Additionally, it will submit annual reports to EEOC on complaints of race discrimination and harassment it receives at its Baton Rouge and Harahan offices and their resolution. EEOC v. Corporate Express Office Products, Inc. , No. 3:09-cv-00516 (M.D. La. Nov. 23, 2009) .
• In September 2007, a federal district court in Arizona granted a motion to dismiss the EEOC's race discrimination case against a northern Arizona hospital. EEOC had alleged that the hospital, which served parts of the Navaho Nation, paid its non-White doctors thousands of dollars less than a White American physician who performed the same work. The non-White physicians represented different races and national origins, including Asian, Native American, Nigerian, Puerto Rican, and Pakistani. When they, as well as a former medical director, sought redress of the wage difference and filed discrimination charges with the EEOC, EEOC alleged that the hospital retaliated against them with threats of termination and threats of adverse changes to the terms and conditions of their employment. EEOC v. Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. , No. 06-CV-2125-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Sept. 7, 2007) .
• In March 2007, EEOC reached a $60,000 settlement in its Title VII lawsuit against Stock Building Supply d/b/a Stuart Lumber alleging that defendant did not give Charging Party a salary increase when he was promoted to a managerial position while White employees who were promoted were given salary increases. EEOC v. Stock Building Supply f/k/a Carolina Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Stuart Lumber Co., Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-306-FTM-29 (M.D. Fla. March 26, 2007).
• In August 2006, the EEOC resolved this Title VII/Equal Pay Act case alleging that the largest electronic screen-based equity securities market in the United States failed to promote its only Black female into higher level Research Analyst positions in its Economic Research Department and paid her less than White male Research Analysts, on the basis of race and sex. The case settled for $75,000 and a raise in her annual salary. EEOC v. NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. , No. 06-1066-RWT (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2006).
• In May 2006, Orkin, Inc. paid $75,000 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC, alleging that Orkin refused to reinstate a Black former employee to a service manager position at the Memphis location and paid him less when he held the position because of his race. EEOC v. Orkin, Inc., No. 05-2657-Ma/P (W.D. Tenn. May 26, 2006).
• In March 2020, Baltimore County-based Bay Country Professional Concrete paid $74,000 and furnished significant equitable relief to settle two federal harassment and retaliation lawsuits by the EEOC. In the first lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Bay Country's owner repeatedly used racial slurs and fired a secretary in retaliation for her opposition to the racial harassment. In the second lawsuit, the EEOC said that Bay Country subjected a concrete finisher, who is male and African American, to racial and sexual harassment by a foreman and co-workers. The harassment included racial slurs, explicit sexual comments and gestures and threats. The concrete finisher called the police to file charges after one co-worker groped him and another intentionally poked him with a shovel handle, the EEOC said. According to the suit, the concrete finisher complained about the harassment and Bay Country fired him in retaliation the same day. EEOC v. Bay Country Professional Concrete LLC , Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02846-ELH (Mar. 31, 2020); EEOC v. Bay Country Professional Concrete LLC , Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02848-ELH (Mar. 31, 2020).
• In March 2020, G.N.T, Inc., doing business as GNT Foods, a grocery store located in East Point, Ga., paid $60,000 and furnished other relief to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. Corey Bussey, Justin Jones and Christopher Evans worked in the meat department at GNT Foods. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the three African American men endured the store owner's daily use of racial slurs, one employee was slapped by the owner, and racially offensive posters of monkeys were prominently displayed in the workplace to humiliate the Black employees. The harassing behavior continued despite numerous complaints by all three employees. In addition to the monetary damages to the three men, the two-year consent decree requires GNT Foods to provide employment discrimination training to its employees, to post its policies and anti-discrimination notice, and to comply with reporting and monitoring requirements.  EEOC v. GNT, Inc. , Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-3545-MHC-LTW (N.D. Ga. Mar. 25, 2020).
• In February 2020, an Illinois fencing company paid $25,000 to settle a race harassment case brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the company’s employees and warehouse manager verbally harassed an African American employee based on his race by calling him racial slurs and making offensive comments about Black people in his presence. When the Black employee complained, no action was taken and the mistreatment continued.  Additionally, two coworkers attempted to put his head in a noose that was hanging in the warehouse; the warehouse manager saw the noose and laughed despite company policies that obligated him to  report the harassment. After the noose incident, the Black employee quit his job and filed a constructive discharge suit.  The judge ruled in EEOC's favor on summary judgment. Thereafter, the parties agreed to settle the matter. The two-year consent decree requires the company to strengthen its discrimination complaint procedure and develop and implement investigation procedures. The decree also mandates training of employees and reporting to the EEOC any future complaints of race harassment.  EEOC v. Driven Fence, Inc. , Civil Action No. 17 C 6817 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 18, 2020)
• In November 2019, On The Border Acquisitions, LLC, doing business as On The Border Mexican Grill & Cantina (OTB), paid $100,000 and provided other relief to settle an EEOC race harassment lawsuit. EEOC alleged that  OTB failed to act when several employees at its Holtsville, New York location subjected an African-American cook to harassment based on his race, including repeatedly calling him racial slurs. EEOC v. On The Border Acquisitions, LLC, d/b/a On The Border Mexican Grill & Cantina , Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-05122 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. xx 2019).
• In October 2019, a Phoenix-based moving company accused of "pervasive" racial harassment against a Black employee will pay $54,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit.  According to the EEOC's lawsuit, a supervisor at Arizona Discount Movers frequently made racist comments to an African American employee named Clinton Lee. The EEOC alleged that the supervisor also told Lee he could not enter the building because they were having a Ku Klux Klan meeting and put a statue of a jockey on his desk with a whip in the jockey's hand tied in a noose. He labelled the statue "Clint." According to the EEOC, the same supervisor hung a troll doll painted black with a Post-it affixed to the doll that read, "Clint King." The doll was hung from a hook and displayed in the middle of the facility. The EEOC also alleged that Lee's super­visor pointed to the doll and said "Hey Clint look! That's you!" Lee complained to the owner, who told Lee to take the doll down if he did not like it. Lee felt he had to resign because of the harassment, and the EEOC further alleged that, since 2011, Arizona Discount Movers has required its employees sign a two-page "Rules and Employee Agreement," which included both "Negative attitudes, fighting, complainers will not be tolerated here" and "Drugs, fighting, foul language, racism, arguing will be tolerated." In addition to the monetary settlement, the company is required to write an apology letter and a positive letter of reference for its former employee.   EEOC v. Arizona Discount Movers , Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01966-HRH (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2019).
• In September 2019, the EEOC Office of Federal Operations reversed an agency finding of no discrimination. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the U.S. Department of Transportation discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American) and color (Black), when on November 11, 2016, she was subjected to harassment by a coworker. Complainant indicated that the coworker who also was the president of the local union sent her an email with the subject line “Asshole” and stated the following: If [Complainant] wasn’t such a N** who would run an[d] yell racism tomorrow.  At work.  I would love to answer her with this…Those people are pieces of shit and hopefully they try that with me so I can gun them down.” The Agency found no discrimination. The appellate decision found that Complainant was subjected to harassment when she received the email from the coworker.  The decision then determined that the Agency erred finding that it took prompt action.  The decision noted that the Agency took six months to engage in an internal investigation and issue the coworker a proposed 30-day suspension.  The Agency failed to inform the Commission what, if any, final disciplinary action was issued against the coworker.  Accordingly, the decision held that the Agency failed to take prompt action to meet its affirmative defense.  As such, the decision concluded that Complainant had been subjected to harassment based on her race and color. The decision remanded the matter to the Agency for a determination on Complainant’s entitlement to compensatory damages, for training and reconsideration of discipline for the co-worker, for training for management focusing on addressing harassment, and for consideration of disciplinary action against the management officials who failed to respond to Complainant’s claims of harassment in a prompt manner.   Sharon M. v. DOT , EEOC Appeal No. 0120180192 (Sep. 25, 2019).
• In September 2019, a tire, wheels and auto service company, agreed to pay $55,000 and furnish other relief to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the store manager of the Port Huron, Mich., location made derogatory, race-based comments to the only African American employee. The remarks included calling the employee "cricket" and "dumb-dumb" and telling him that "blacks don't get Saturdays off." The comments were sometimes accompanied by demeaning physical contact, such as slapping the employee in the head or shoving him, the EEOC said. After the employee formally complained to human resources about the harassment, he was fired within 48 hours. The manager was given a written warning for "shop talk" and "horseplay." The three-year consent decree provides that the company  also will take meaningful steps toward ensuring a work environment that is free from harassment by redistributing its anti-discrimination policy and providing annual anti-harassment training for certain human resources professionals and managers. The decree also required the company to report future complaints of race harassment and any measures taken to investigate and remedy such complaints. EEOC v. Belle Tire Distributors, Inc. , Case No. 2:18-cv-13795 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 24, 2019).
• In June 2019, Aaron’s Inc. paid $425,000 and provided anti-discrimination training to its New York City area workforce to settle a federal government lawsuit accusing it of racial harassment.  The EEOC alleged in a December 2017 complaint that the rent-to-own furniture chain subjected Black employees at a Queens, N.Y., warehouse to racist name-calling by two managers. The same managers also regularly assigned Black employees to longer routes with heavier items to deliver than they assigned White employees, the EEOC alleged. The four-year agreement requires the company to furnish semi-annual compliance reports to the EEOC, including regarding the whereabouts of the two managers accused of the alleged harassment. It must also place a notation in the personnel file of both managers stating that they were the subject of a racial harassment complaint.  EEOC v. Aaron’s, Inc. , No. 1:17-cv-07273 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered 6/4/19).
• In April 2019, A&F Fire Protection, Inc., a NY fire sprinkler and standpipe contractor, paid $407,500 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit in which EEOC alleged that Black and Hispanic employees were frequently subjected to racial remarks by managers and coworkers and a supervisor who used gorilla sounds as a ringtone for a Black employee. A Hispanic employee said his supervisor called him an anti-Hispanic slur and referred to him as a “dumb-in-a-can” in reference to his Dominican national origin.  A Black assistant superintendent said that his contact information  was saved in his supervisor’s cell phone contacts as “BBG” and when he called the phone would say “Big, Black gorilla is calling” and the ringtone would make gorilla sounds.  A Puerto Rican employee reported that a coworker said that the company was starting to look like “an immigration camp” because of all the Black and Hispanic employees.  EEOC v.  A&F Fire Protection, Inc. , No. 2:17-04745 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree filed Apr. 23, 2019).
• In April 2019, a Jacksonville-based licensed sports merchandise company agreed to pay a Black former employee $57,050 in back pay and $265,000 in compensatory damages, a total of $322,050 as part of a consent decree to settle an EEOC lawsuit.  The lawsuit alleged that a Black employee was asked if he could read because “a lot of you guys can’t read,” and that a general manager referred to Black employees as “monkeys” or “Africans” and many other accusations. The employee also claimed he was hit with a racial slur from a team leader on his first day of work and that after voicing complaints about what he saw as unfair treatment of Black employees, his supervisor “told him that he would never be promoted.” EEOC v. Fanatics Retail Group , Inc. , Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-900-J-32PDB (M.D. Fla. consent decree filed April 17, 2019).
• In November 2018, a Texas-based oil and  gas company operating in Tioga, N.D., paid $50,000 and furnished other relief  to settle an EEOC racial harassment lawsuit. The EEOC's lawsuit charged  that Murex Petroleum Corp. violated federal law when it subjected an African-American  roustabout to racial harassment by his White coworkers. The harassment included the White  coworkers calling the Black employee racial slurs such as "spook," "spade" and  "Buckwheat." The coworkers also made racially derogatory comments including  using the racially offensive term "n----r-rigged," which was witnessed by the employee’s supervisor who took no action to  stop it. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, another African-American employee  complained to a high-level executive at the company, but, again, no action was  taken to stop or prevent the harassment. EEOC v. Murex Petroleum Corp. , Civil  Action No. 1:18-cv-00169-CSM (D.N.D. Nov. 19, 2018).
• In October 2018, MPW Industrial Services, Inc., a Hebron, Ohio industrial cleaning company, paid $170,0000 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, MPW subjected two African-American employees to racial harassment, including hangman's nooses, racial epithets, racist comments and jokes, and an alleged KKK meeting at the worksite. The parties reached an agreement and filed a joint motion to enter a consent decree. The motion was approved by the court and the consent decree was entered on Oct. 23. Under the decree, which settles the suit, MPW Industrial Services is required to pay $170,000 to the two former employees who experienced the racial harassment. The decree also provides for injunctive and equitable relief and, in particular, requires that MPW train supervisors and managers to spot and prevent racial harassment in the future. EEOC v. MPW Industrial Services, Inc. , Case No. 1:18-cv-00063 (S.D. Ohio consent decree filed Oct. 23, 2018).
• In October 2018, Floyd's Equipment Inc., a Sikeston, Mo. contractor, paid $25,000 and furnished other relief to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.  The EEOC filed suit against the company in September 2017, charging that Floyd's had engaged in race discrimination when a Floyd foreman repeatedly used the slur "n----r." After an African-American employee complained, the foreman angrily confronted him and rather than disciplining the harasser, the company transferred Woodall from his assignment as a backhoe operator to a less desirable job doing pick-and-shovel work in another state. Ultimately, Floyd's fired Woodall. EEOC v. Floyd's Equipment, Inc. , Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00175-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Oct. 17, 2018).
• In September 2018, Big 5 store in Oak Harbor, Island County settled a racial harassment and retaliation case for $165,000 and other remedial relief.  According to the EEOC lawsuit, a management trainee who was the only African-American employee at the store was subjected to a “litany of unremedied racial comments” including being called "spook," "boy," and "King Kong" and told that he had the "face of a janitor" from store management.  Additionally, EEOC alleged that an assistant store manager threatened to lynch him.  The trainee stressed by the harassment and retaliation after reporting the harassment to upper management, took leaves from work and was eventually fired.  Pursuant to a three-year consent decree, the store also is required to provide training and ensure that it has appropriate anti-harassment policies in place.  EEOC v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp., Civil Number 2:17-CV-01098 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 2018).
• In July 2018, a Texas-based oilfield service company operating in Williston, N.D., paid $39,900 to an equipment operator who alleged that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment because of his race, Asian, and then fired after he complained about it. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the employee was racially harassed by his white supervisor. The racial harassment included the supervisor calling him "little Asian" and "Chow" based on the Asian character in the movie "Hangover." On one occasion, the supervisor physically assaulted the employee when he poured a bottle of water on Villanueva's head, grabbed his head, and pushed it down towards a table, the EEOC charged. Although the employee complained about the harassment to supervisors and reported the assault to the police, he was fired. EEOC v. Cudd Energy Services , Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-00037-LLP-ARS (D.N.D. consent decree filed July 19, 2018).
• In January 2018, a water and waste-water services company in Bear, Delaware paid $150,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging racial harassment.  According to the EEOC, an African-American foreman repeatedly had racial slurs directed at him by a White superintendent and other White foremen.  The Black foreman complained to company management about the slurs to which he and other African-American employees were subjected, including epithets such as “n—-r,” “monkey” and “boy.” The company not only failed to stop the harassment, but in fact promoted one of the wrongdoers and assigned the Black foreman to work under his supervision on a project. In May 2016, the company fired him allegedly in retaliation for complaining about the racially hostile work environment.  Under a two-year consent decree, the company is prohibited from engaging in discrimination based on race or unlawful retaliation in the future and must  provide training on federal anti-discrimination laws, including preventing harassment. The company also will implement and disseminate to all employees a revised anti-harassment policy, and will also post a notice regarding the settlement. The company will also provide a neutral reference letter to the terminated employee.  EEOC v. Aqua America Inc., dba Aqua Resources Inc ., No. 2:17-cv-04346-JS (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2018).
• In October 2017, Reliable Inc., doing business as Reliable Nissan, agreed to settle charges of discrimination based on race, national origin, and religion, along with retaliation. The agreement follows conciliation between the EEOC and Reliable Nissan over claims that two Reliable Nissan Managers repeatedly used the "N-word" during a sales meeting, and referred to African, African-American, Native American, Muslim and Hispanic employees in a derogatory manner. Employees alleged that managers made offensive jokes about Muslim and Native American employees' religious practices and traditions, and used racial epithets like "n----r," "drunken Indians," "red." and "redskins." Racially offensive pictures targeted against minority employees were also posted in the workplace. As part of the conciliation agreement, Reliable Nissan agreed to pay a total of $205,000 to three emp­loyees who filed discrimination charges with the EEOC and 11 other minority employees who were subjected to the hostile work environment. The company also agreed to provide annual training for two years for its emp­loyees, including managers and human resources employees. Additionally, Reliable Nissan agreed to re­view its policies and procedures to ensure that employees have a mechanism for reporting discrimination and to make certain that each complaint will be appropriately investigated.
• In September 2017, a Hugo, Minnesota construction company paid $125,000 to settle a racial harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that JL Schwieters Construction, Inc. violated federal law when it subjected two Black employees to a hostile work environment, including physical threats, based on their race. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, two Black carpenters were subjected to racial harassment during their employment by a White supervisor, who made racially derogatory comments including calling them "n----r." The supervisor also made a noose out of electrical wire and threatened to hang them, the EEOC charged. EEOC v. JL Schwieters Construction, Inc ., Civil Action No. 16-cv-03823 WMW/FLN (D. Minn. Sep. 6, 2017).
• In July 2017, the largest producer of farmed shellfish in the United States, paid $160,000 and implemented other relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit. According to the EEOC's suit, a Black maintenance mechanic at the Taylor Shellfish's Samish Bay Farm faced repeated demeaning comments about his race, including the use of the "N word," "spook" and "boy." His direct supervisor commented that his father used to run "your kind" out of town. When the mechanic reported this behavior to management, the supervisor retaliated against him and Taylor Shellfish simply advised him to "put his head down and do what he was told." After being wrongly accused and disciplined for insubordination, he felt he had no other choice but to quit his job. Under the consent decree resolving this case, Taylor Shellfish has agreed to implement new policies, conduct extensive training for employees and management, post an anti-discrimination notice at the workplace and report compliance to the EEOC for a three-year period. EEOC v. Taylor Shellfish Company, Inc. , 2:16-CV-01517 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2017 ).
• In July 2016, the Fourth Circuit reversed summary judgment in an employment discrimination case alleging race, national origin, religion, and pregnancy discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in which the EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff. Plaintiff Monica Guessous is an Arab-American Muslim woman from Morocco who worked for Fairview Property Investments, LLC until she was terminated from her position as a bookkeeping assistant by her supervisor, Greg Washenko, Fairview's Chief Financial Officer. During her work tenure, Washenko made several derogatory comments about Morrocans, Muslims and Middle Easterns, often referring to them as "terrorists" and "crooks." Additionally, he complained about plaintiff's request for a three-month maternity leave and refused to transfer back her job duties when she returned to work. By failing to address numerous comments that were open to a racially motivated interpretation, and by circumscribing its analysis to just one comment without reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the district court committed reversible error in its grant of summary judgment for Fairview on the discrimination and hostile work environment claims. The Fourth Circuit also decided that discriminatory discrete acts could support a hostile work environment claim even if it is separately actionable. Guessous v. Fairview Prop. Invest. , No. 15-1055 (4th Cir. 7/6/2016).
• In January 2015, Carolina Metal Finishing, LLC, a Bishopville, S.C. based metal finishing company, paid $40,000 and furnished significant remedial relief to settle a race harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's complaint, a Black powder coater at the Bishopville plant was repeatedly subjected to racial slurs by two White employees. The comments included repeated use of the "N-word." The Black employee allegedly complained to company management, but the harassment continued. Within hours of his final complaint, the coater was fired, allegedly in retaliation for his complaints of racial harassment. In addition to paying $40,000 in monetary relief, the company must abide by the terms of a two-year consent decree resolving the case. The consent decree enjoins Carolina Metal from engaging in future racial discrimination. The decree also requires the company to conduct anti-discrimination training at its Bishopville facility; post a notice about the settlement at that facility; implement a formal anti-discriminatory policy prohibiting racial discrimination; and report certain complaints of conduct that could constitute discrimination under Title VII to the EEOC for monitoring. EEOC v. Carolina Metal Finishing, LLC , No. 3:14-cv-03815 (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 2015).
• In December 2014, Swissport Fueling, Inc., which fuels aircraft at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, paid $250,000 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit for race and national origin harassment filed by the EEOC. The EEOC's lawsuit was brought to obtain relief for fuelers who were from various African nations, including Sudan, Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone. The lawsuit alleged that a Swissport manager routinely called the African fuelers "monkeys" in various degrading ways. A manager also made demeaning references to slavery to the fuelers, such as telling them: "You guys are lucky I pay you because way back then, you did not get paid"; "You are lucky to be paid. A long time ago Blacks were doing this for free"; "At one time, you people would not be paid"; and "Blacks work for free." EEOC alleged that the African fuelers reported the harassment verbally and in writing, including by signing a written petition and delivering it to the office of Swissport's general manager at the Phoenix facility to try to stop the harassment, but the abuse continued. EEOC v. Swissport Fueling, Inc. , No. 2:10-cv-02101(GMS) (D. Ariz. Nov. 25, 2014).
• In August 2014, a Thomasville mattress company agreed to pay a combined $42,000 to two Black former workers to settle an EEOC complaint that alleged they were unlawfully fired. The complaint alleged that they complained to the company about racial comments that included the "N-word" made by a White employee between June and August 2012, but the harassment continued. The three-year settlement includes the company's agreement to not permit or maintain a hostile work environment based on race, not to discriminate or retaliate against any employees because of opposition to any unlawful practice, a posting of procedures for reporting discrimination and harassment, the submission of a report to EEOC regarding internal discrimination and harassment complaints, and the provision of a neutral letter of reference that states one of the affected employees left employment because he was laid off. EEOC v. Carolina Mattress Guild Inc. , No. 1:13-cv-00706 (M.D.N.C. consent decree entered Aug. 1, 2014).
• In March 2014, Titan Waste Services, Inc., a Milton, Fla., waste disposal and recycling company, was ordered to pay $228,603 for violating federal law by harassing and then firing a truck driver because of his race. According to the EEOC's suit, Titan's highest-level managers subjected its sole Black driver, Michael Brooks, to discriminatory treatment during his employment, including assigning White drivers more favorable routes, requiring Brooks to perform degrading and unsafe work assignments. Brooks was also subjected to harassment such as racial slurs and racially derogatory insults, taunting and racial stereotypes, including the use of the "N-word." According to the EEOC, shortly before the 2008 presidential election, Titan's facility manager terminated Brooks without cause after discussing the upcoming election with him. After Titan's attorney withdrew from the case, the court found Titan did not continue to assert its defenses and ignored several orders of the court, displaying a reckless and willful disregard for the judicial proceedings. As a result, a default judgment was entered by U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, based upon evidence submitted by the EEOC and Titan was ordered to pay lost wages and other damages suffered by Brooks. EEOC v. Titan Waste Services, Inc. , No. 3:10-cv-00379 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2014).
• In March 2014, Olympia Construction, Inc. paid $100,000 jointly to three former employees to resolve a race harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that Olympia subjected Adrian Soles, Anthony Moorer and George McWilliams to racial slurs and intimidation. The agency also said that Olympia terminated the victims because they complained to the EEOC. EEOC v. Olympia Constr. , No. 2:13-cv-155 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 27, 2014).
• In June 2013, a national food distributor paid $15,000 in compensatory damages to three former employees to resolve an EEOC race discrimination lawsuit alleging that its Mason City warehouse failed for months to remove racist graffiti in a men's restroom that included a swastika and references to the Ku Klux Klan, despite complaints from an African-American employee. Specifically, an African-American employee complained to management that he had seen graffiti reading "N*****s STINK" in a men's restroom. The EEOC alleged that the distributor's supervisors, including the Black employee's supervisor, used that restroom, yet the racist message remained for 30 days after he complained. The EEOC's suit also alleged that, about a week after the distributor finally removed the graffiti, a second message appeared, this time stating "KKK I hate N*****s." The EEOC alleged that this second message remained visible for over three months after the employee alerted the EEOC to the situation. In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree requires the company will repaint the restrooms and train employees on race discrimination within 45 days. EEOC v. MBM Corp. , No. 3:12-cv-3069(LTS) (N.D. Iowa consent decree granted June 24, 2013).
• In May 2013, a Tyler, Texas-based petroleum and gas industry equipment provider paid $150,000 and furnished other relief to settle an EEOC racial harassment and retaliation suit. According to the EEOC's suit, an African-American employee of Torqued-Up assigned to a field crew in South Texas experienced racial harassment in the form of racial slurs and epithets from two employees who supervised him on the job. According to the EEOC, the employee, who had 30 years of experience in the oil industry, reported the racial harassment to Torqued-Up's management, but instead of putting a stop to it, the company unlawfully retaliated against him. The punishment included removing the man from his crew and assigning him to perform menial tasks such as washing trucks and sweeping, rather than the oil field work that he had been hired to perform, and reducing his work hours, thereby reducing his income. EEOC v. Torqued-Up Energy Services, Inc. , No. 6:12-cv-00051 (S.D. Tex. May 28, 2013).
• In April 2013, a Utah construction company paid three former employees $230,000 and improved its future employment practices to settle an EEOC race harassment and retaliation lawsuit. The EEOC filed suit against the company in September 2010, charging that the company subjected Antonio and Joby Bratcher and a class of African-American employees to racial harassment and retaliation. In a ruling last year, Judge Dale A. Kimball found that the Bratchers and class member James Buie were subjected to an objectively hostile work environment based on race. The court observed that the site superintendent, Paul E. Facer, referred to the African-American employees as "n----rs" or a variation of that word almost every time he spoke to them. Other Holmes employees used the term "n----r-rigging" while working there, and racist graffiti was evident both inside and outside portable toilets on the work site. In addition to the monetary relief, Holmes also committed to implement several affirmative steps to prevent and address race-based conduct on the worksite. These measures include: a comprehensive training regimen on discrimination (including racial discrimination and harassment); discussions of harassment in work site meetings on a monthly basis; the provision of an external ombudsman to receive and investigate complaints of discrimination or retaliation; and a detailed review and revision of Holmes' policies and procedures concerning protected-class discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v. Holmes & Holmes Industrial, Inc. , No. 2:10-CV-955 (D. Utah consent decree filed Apr. 12, 2013).
• In March 2013, EEOC and Day & Zimmerman NPS, a leading supplier of maintenance, labor, and construction services to the power industry, filed a consent decree resolving EEOC's claims that Day & Zimmerman violated federal law by creating a hostile work environment for an African-American laborer for $190,000. In the lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Day & Zimmerman, through its foreman at the Poletti Power Plant in Astoria, Queens, N.Y., had subjected Carlos Hughes to physical and verbal racial harassment that included racial insults and derogatory stories referring to African Americans as stupid and incompetent, as well as frequently tripping Hughes, and once kicking him in the buttocks. The foreman also told racist jokes in the workplace, and made negative comments about African Americans; including that Sean Bell (shot by the police at a nightclub) deserved to be shot, and threatened that candidate Barack Obama would be shot before the country allowed a Black president. EEOC alleged that Hughes complained to management many times for more than a year regarding the harassment, and that when Day & Zimmerman finally arranged a meeting in response, it disciplined Hughes less than an hour later, and then fired him that same day, citing a false safety violation as a reason. EEOC v. Day & Zimmerman NPS, Inc. , No. 1:11-cv-04741 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree filed Mar. 12, 2013).
• The Commission alleged that Whirlpool violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it did nothing to stop a White male co-worker at a Whirlpool plant in LaVergne, Tenn., from harassing an African-American female employee because of her race and sex. The abuse lasted for two months and escalated when the co-worker physically assaulted the Black employee and inflicted serious permanent injuries. During a four-day bench trial, the court heard evidence that the employee repeatedly reported offensive verbal conduct and gestures by the co-worker to Whirlpool management before she was violently assaulted, without any corrective action by the company. The trial also established that the employee suffered devastating permanent mental injuries that will prevent her from working again as a result of the assault. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the judge entered a final judgment and awarded the employee a total of $1,073,261 in back pay, front pay and compensatory damages on December 21, 2009. Whirlpool filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment on January 15, 2010 which the district court denied on March 31, 2011. On April 26, 2011, Whirlpool appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The company withdrew its appeal on June 11, 2012 and agreed settle the case with the EEOC and plaintiff intervener for $1 million and court costs. The plant where the discrimination occurred had closed during the litigation period. EEOC v. Whirlpool Corp. , No. 11-5508 (6th Cir. June 12, 2012) (granting joint motion to dismiss).
• Ready Mix paid a total of $400,000 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among the seven class members to settle an EEOC lawsuit. The Commission had alleged Ready Mix USA LLC, doing business as Couch Ready Mix USA LLC, subjected a class of African American males at Ready Mix's Montgomery-area facilities to a racially hostile work environment. A noose was displayed in the worksite, derogatory racial language, including references to the Ku Klux Klan, was used by a direct supervisor and manager and that race-based name calling occurred. Ready Mix denies that racial harassment occurred at its worksites. The two-year decree enjoins Ready Mix from engaging in further racial harassment or retaliation and requires that the company conduct EEO training. Ready Mix will be required to modify its policies to ensure that racial harassment is prohibited and a system for investigation of complaints is in place. The company must also report certain complaints of harassment or retaliation to the EEOC for monitoring. EEOC v. Ready Mix USA LLC , No. 2:09-cv-00923 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 3, 2012).
• In January 2013, a federal jury found that two Black employees of a North Carolina trucking company were subjected to a racially hostile work environment and awarded them $200,000 in damages. The jury also found that one employee was fired in retaliation for complaining about the hostile environment. In a complaint filed in June 2011, EEOC alleged that, from at least May 2007 through June 2008, one Black employee was subjected to derogatory and threatening comments based on his race by his supervisor and co-workers, and that a coworker mechanic displayed a noose and asked him if he wanted to "hang from our family tree." EEOC also alleged that the mechanic also repeatedly and regularly called the employee "nigger" and "Tyrone," a term the co-worker used to refer to unknown black individuals. Evidence also revealed that A.C. Widenhouse's general manager and the employee's supervisor also regularly made racial comments and used racial slurs, such as asking him if he would be the coon in a "coon hunt" and alerting him that if one of his daughters brought home a Black man, he would kill them both. The employee also frequently heard other co-workers use racial slurs such as "nigger" and "monkey" over the radio when communicating with each other. The second Black employee testified that, when he was hired in 2005, he was the company's only African American and was told he was the "token black." The general manager also talked about a noose and having "friends" visit in the middle of the night as threats to Floyd. Both employees reported the racial harassment, but company supervisors and officers failed to address the hostile work environment. The jury awarded the former employees $50,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 each in punitive damages. EEOC v. A.C. Widenhouse Inc., No. 1:11-cv-498 (M.D.N.C. verdict filed Jan. 28, 2013).
• In January 2013, Emmert International agreed to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC that charged the company harassed and retaliated against employees in violation of federal law. Specifically, the EEOC's lawsuit alleged that the company's foreman and other Emmert employees repeatedly harassed two employees, one African American and the other Caucasian, while working on the Odd Fellows Hall project in Salt Lake City. Emmert's foreman and employees regularly used the "n-word," called the Black employee "boy," called the White employee a "n---- lover," and made racial jokes and comments. The EEOC also alleged that Emmert International retaliated against Black employee for complaining about the harassment. The 24- month consent decree requires the company to pay $180,000 to the two employees, provide training to its staff on unlawful employment discrimination, and to review and revise its policies on workplace discrimination. The decree also requires Emmert International to post notices explaining federal laws against workplace discrimination. EEOC v. Emmert Industrial Corp., d/b/a Emmert International , No. 2:11-CV-00920CW (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 2013).
• In October 2012, a district court ruled that the EEOC proved that a construction site where a White supervisor regularly used racial slurs was objectively a hostile work environment for Black employees under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It also decided, however, that a jury must determine if the three Black plaintiffs found the workplace subjectively offensive because, although their repeated complaints indicate they were offended, a jury must resolve factual issues raised by some co-workers' testimony that the plaintiffs actually did not seem bothered by the harasser's conduct. Ruling on EEOC's motion for partial summary judgment, the court said the company's admissions that site superintendent/project manager referred to three Black plaintiff-intervenors as "nigger" or "nigga" on a near-daily basis and told racial jokes using those terms and other offensive epithets establishes an objective racially hostile work environment. The court said the undisputed evidence also indicated that human resources manager told the company's employees during a safety meeting not to "nigger rig their jobs"; that company management was aware the worksite's portable toilets were covered with racist graffiti; and that other White supervisors and employees routinely used racial epithets, including an incident where a White supervisor commented regarding rap music being played in a van transporting employees to the worksite, "I'm not listening to this nigger jig." When confronted by a Black employee about the comment, the White supervisor allegedly replied: "I can see where your feelings were hurt, but there is a difference between niggers and blacks, Mexicans and spics. But I see you as a black man." EEOC v. Holmes & Holmes Indus. Inc. , No. 10-955 (D. Utah Oct. 10, 2012).
• In March 2012, the EEOC sued a restaurant in Menomonie, Wisconsin because its managers allegedly posted images of a noose, a Klan hood and other racist depictions, including a dollar bill that was defaced with a noose around the neck of a Black-faced George Washington, swastikas, and the image of a man in a Ku Klux Klan hood. A Black employee to complained and then was fired. EEOC v. Northern Star Hospitality Inc. , Civil Action No. 12-cv-214 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 27, 2012).
• In February 2012, major cement and concrete products company, paid $400,000 and furnished other relief to settle am EEOC lawsuit alleging racial harassment. The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that a class of African American males at Ready Mix's Montgomery-area facilities was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The EEOC said that a noose was displayed in the worksite, that derogatory racial language, including references to the Ku Klux Klan, was used by a direct supervisor and manager and that race-based name calling occurred. Ready Mix denies that racial harassment occurred at its worksites. The two-year decree also enjoins Ready Mix from engaging in further racial harassment or retaliation and requires that the company conduct EEO training. Ready Mix will be required to modify its policies to ensure that racial harassment is prohibited and a system for investigation of complaints is in place. The company must also report certain complaints of harassment or retaliation to the EEOC for monitoring. EEOC v. Ready Mix USA d/b/a Couch Ready Mix USA LLC , No. 2:09-CV-923 (M.D. Ala. consent decree announced Feb. 21, 2012).
• In August 2011, a federal district court entered a default judgment in favor of the EEOC in its lawsuit alleging that a pipeline construction company permitted several African American employees to be subjected to hanging nooses in the workplace even after they complained about the offensive displays. The company failed to retain counsel to prosecute the lawsuit. The court granted the EEOC's motion for a default judgment and awarded $50,000 to five claimants. The court also enjoined the company from discriminating on the basis of race or protected conduct in violation of Title VII . EEOC v. L.A. Pipeline Constr. Co. , No. 2:08-CV-840 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 5, 2011).
• In June 2011, Herzog Roofing, Inc., a Detroit Lakes, Minn., roofing company, agreed in a pre-suit settlement to pay $71,500 to seven Black, Hispanic, and American Indian employees to settle racial harassment and retaliation charges, alleging that the targeted employees were frequently subjected to racial epithets, racial jokes and hostile treatment by managers and coworkers and that complaints were ignored. The EEOC also had found that the company retaliated against the employee who brought the initial complaint by firing him after he reported the unlawful treatment. In addition to monetary relief, the company has agreed to provide anti-discrimination training to all of its employees and additional training on harassment and retaliation to all supervisors, managers and owners. It also will redistribute its anti-harassment policies and procedures and monitor its supervisors' compliance with equal employment opportunity laws.
• In May 2011, an IT service company entered a consent decree to pay $60,000 to an African-American employee who had allegedly been subjected to race discrimination and retaliation. In its lawsuit, the EEOC had alleged that the employee's supervisors subjected him to racial epithets and asked if he was a "black man or a n----r." The Commission further alleged that, following his complaints of racial discrimination, the company demoted and later discharged the employee. The consent decree enjoins the company from engaging in any racial discrimination or retaliation and requires the company to post a remedial notice for two years. In addition, the company must draft its non-discrimination, anti-harassment, and retaliation policies in simple, plain language and include a complaint procedure within these policies. The consent decree also bolsters supervisor accountability and requires training on the requirements of Title VII for all managers, supervisors, and Human Resources personnel. Finally, the company must keep records of each future complaint related to race, national origin, or retaliation and furnish written reports to the EEOC regarding any potential complaints. EEOC v. Eclipse Advantage, Inc. , No. 1:10-cv-02001 (N.D. Ohio consent decree filed May 2, 2011) .
• In April 2011, an architectural sheet metal company settled a racial harassment case for $160,000 in which the EEOC alleged that a White supervisor regularly referred to African-American employees with the epithet "n----r" and used other slurs and racial graffiti was on display in common areas and on company equipment. In addition to monetary relief, the 18-month consent decree settling the lawsuit provides for training on employee rights under Title VII, and requires the company to maintain records of racial harassment complaints, provide annual reports to the EEOC, and post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that includes the EEOC's contact information. EEOC v. Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc. , No. 2:09-cv-02636 (W.D. Tenn. settled Apr. 22, 2011) .
• In April 2011, the Fourth Circuit vacated in part the district court's judgment and remanded for trial part of the EEOC's racial harassment suit against Xerxes, a fiberglass company. EEOC had alleged that the company's Hagerstown, MD plant permitted its Black employees to be subjected to a racially hostile work environment despite repeated complaints about the harassment. The alleged harassment included name-calling such as "black Polack," "Buckwheat," and "boy;" White coworkers' frequent use of the N-word; and the discovery of a note in a Black employee's locker that said: "KKK plans could result in death, serious personal injury, Nigga Bernard." The district court dismissed the EEOC's case, ruling that Xerxes had "acted quickly and reasonably effectively to end" the harassment. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit decided that a reasonable jury could find that the complaints by two claimants prior to February 2006 "were sufficient to place Xerxes on actual notice of racial slurs and pranks in the plant and that Xerxes' response was unreasonable." The court affirmed the rest of the district court's judgment. EEOC v. Xerxes Corp. , No. 10-1156 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2011) .
• In October 2010, a South Point, Ohio-based contractor that constructs and installs water and sewer lines entered into a 5-year consent decree to settle claims that it violated Title VII when it failed to stop a White foreman and employees from racially harassing and retaliating against a Black laborer working at defendant's sewer installation site in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. The alleged harassment included directing threatening language and conduct at the Black laborer, such as saying that President Obama would be assassinated and showing him a swastika a White coworker had spray-painted on company equipment. The contractor fired the Black laborer allegedly because he refused to drop his complaint after the superintendent told him that he could not guarantee the laborer's safety and that he could not return to work while he continued to press his complaint. The consent decree awards the laborer $87,205 in monetary relief, $47,205 as backpay and $40,000 as punitive damages (paid in four quarterly $10,000 installments), all personally guaranteed by the owner, as well as a written offer of reinstatement. The decree also permanently enjoins race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation, and requires the contractor to implement antidiscrimination policies, complaint procedures with multiple avenues for complaining about discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, guidelines for prompt and thorough investigation of each such complaint or report (whether verbal or written), procedures for compiling and maintaining an investigative file, and EEO training for all managers, supervisors, and other employees. EEOC v. Mike Enyart & Sons , No. 5:10-cv-00921 (S.D.W.Va. settled Oct. 6, 2010) .
• In September 2010, EEOC sued the largest private university in the United States and one of New York City's ten biggest employers for allegedly violating federal law by creating a hostile work environment for an African-born employee that included degrading verbal harassment based on national origin and race. According to the EEOC's suit, the supervisor of the mailroom in NYU's Elmer Holmes Bobst Library regularly subjected his assistant, who is a native of Ghana, to slurs such as "monkey" and "gorilla," and made comments such as "go back to your cage," "go back to the jungle," and "do you want a banana?" The supervisor also frequently mocked the assistant's accented English, deriding it as "gibberish," and expressed hostility toward immigrants generally and Africans specifically. Although the assistant complained repeatedly to NYU management and human resources personnel, NYU took months to investigate and then took virtually no action to curb the supervisor's conduct. Even after the assistant alerted NYU that the supervisor had retaliated against him for complaining, such as by fabricating grounds for disciplining him, the university did not stop the harassment. EEOC v. New York Univ. , No. 10-CV-7399 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 27, 2010) .
• In September 2010, the largest uniform manufacturer in North America and provider of specialized services agreed to pay $152,500 to settle a racial harassment claim. A class of African-American employees was subjected to racial harassment by co-workers when workers in a specific division were referred to as the "ghetto division," and were called derivations of "chocolate" or "chocolate delicious," conduct that went uncorrected. In addition to monetary relief, a consent decree enjoins the company from engaging in either sexual or racial harassment or retaliation. Furthermore, the company must conduct training on federal anti-discrimination laws, report on company responses to complaints, and post a remedial notice. EEOC v. Cintas Corp. , No. 1:09-cv-04449 (E.D. Pa. settled Sept. 27, 2010) .
• In September 2010, EEOC filed a racial harassment lawsuit against a cell phone installation and testing company, asserting that the company violated federal anti-discrimination laws when it subjected an African-American employee to severe and repeated harassment. According to the complaint, a foreman regularly subjected the employee to racially driven comments, gestures, and threats, including calling him "boy," telling him that that "whites run things," and threatening to physically harm the employee. Furthermore, the foreman, who wore a swastika on his arm, stated that he had "cut an African from the belly to the neck" and that he "likes killing blacks and Mexicans." The foreman also said about Black people, "just hang them and burn a cross on the homes." The harassment continued even after the employee reported the conduct. Because the employee feared for his safety, he resigned. EEOC v. Towersite Services, LLC , No. 1:10-cv-02997 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2010) .
• In August 2010, an aircraft services company settled for $600,000 the EEOC's suit claiming the company permitted the unlawful harassment of Black, Filipino, and Guatemalan employees at a Burbank, California airport. Under a two-year consent decree, Mercury Air Centers Inc. agreed to pay the settlement amount to at least seven employees who were allegedly subjected to "a barrage of harassing comments" by a Salvadoran co-worker at Bob Hope Airport. Rather than respond to the employees' complaints about the alleged harasser, the company promoted the alleged harasser to supervisor, the Commission alleged. EEOC v. Mercury Air Centers Inc. , No. 08-6332 (C.D. Cal. consent decree filed Aug. 9, 2010) .
• In April 2010, a Houston-area construction company paid $122,500 and will provide additional remedial relief to resolve a federal lawsuit alleging race, national origin and religious discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that the company discriminated against Mohammad Kaleemuddin because he is of the Islamic faith and of East Indian descent, and against 13 other employees because they are Black or Hispanic when a supervisor referred to Kaleemuddin as "terrorist," "Taliban," "Osama" and "Al-Qaeda," to the Black employees as "n----s" and to Hispanics as "f-----g Mexicans." In addition to monetary relief, the consent decree required the owner to provide a signed letter of apology to Kaleemuddin and that the alleged harassing manager alleged be prohibited from ever working again for the company. The company will also provide employee training designed to prevent future discrimination and harassment on the job. EEOC v. Pace Services, L.P. , No. 4:08cv2886 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2010).
• In April 2010, the EEOC settled its lawsuit against Professional Building Systems for $118,000 and significant non-monetary relief after it had identified at least 12 Black employees who had been subjected to racial harassment there. According to the EEOC's complaint, at various times between mid-2005 and 2008, Black employees were subjected to racial harassment that involved the creation and display of nooses; references to Black employees as "boy" and by the "N-word"; and racially offensive pictures such as a picture that depicted the Ku Klux Klan looking down a well at a Black man. In its complaint, the EEOC alleged that the managers of the company not only knew about the harassment and took no action to stop or prevent it, but also that a manager was one of the perpetrators of the harassment. EEOC v. Professional Building Systems of North Carolina, LLC , Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00617) (M.D.N.C. April 2010).
• In February 2010, Big Lots paid $400,000 to settle a race harassment and discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC alleged that the company took no corrective action to stop an immediate supervisor and co-workers, all Hispanic, from subjecting a Black maintenance mechanic and other Black employees to racially derogatory jokes, comments, slurs and epithets, including the use of the words "n----r" and "monkey," at its California distribution center. EEOC v. Big Lots, Inc. , CV-08-06355-GW(CTx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2010).
• In January 2010, the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court's decision granting summary judgment to defendant Whirlpool Corporation in a racial hostile work environment case in which the EEOC participated as amicus curiae. The alleged racial harassment largely involved a serial harasser who continually used racial slurs, including various permutations on "nigger," made references to the Ku Klux Klan openly and on a daily basis, and left a threatening message on a coworker's husband's answering machine. Other racially hostile incidents included White coworkers displaying the Confederate flag on their clothing and tow motors, threatening racial violence, making repeated references to the KKK and the n-word, telling of racist jokes, remarking that they wished they had a "James Earl Ray Day" as a holiday, and "laughing and talking about the Black guy that got drugged [sic] behind a truck in Texas[,] … saying he probably deserved it." Several of the Black plaintiffs also testified about the presence of racial graffiti in the plant bearing similar messages, including "KKK everywhere," "go home sand niggers," and "Jesus suffered, so the niggers must suffer too, or … Blacks must suffer, too." Armstrong v. Whirlpool Corp. , No. 08-6376 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2010).
• In January 2010, a Georgia car dealership agreed to pay $140,000 to settle a race discrimination suit. In this case, the EEOC alleged that a White consultant visited the car dealership three to four times a week and never missed an opportunity to make racially derogatory comments towards the Black sales manager and almost always in the presence of other people. After the Black sales manager complained about the derogatory comments, two White managers asked the consultant to stop his discriminatory behavior. The consultant ignored their requests to cease and continued to make the derogatory comments at every opportunity. The dealership denied any liability or wrongdoing but will provide equal employment opportunity training, make reports, and post anti-discrimination notices. EEOC v. S&H Thomson, Inc., dba Stokes-Hodges Chevrolet Cadillac Buick Pontiac GMC , (S.D. Ga. Consent decree filed Jan. 14, 2010).
• In September 2009, a Phoenix credit card processing company agreed to pay $415,000 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a race harassment lawsuit, in which the EEOC charged that the company subjected a group of African American workers to racial slurs and epithets. According to one discrimination victim: "My supervisors often referred to my fellow African-American employees and me as 'n-----rs' and 'porch monkeys' and forced us to play so-called 'Civil War games' where employees were divided into North and South. They also referred to Black children or mixed-race children as 'porch monkeys' or 'Oreo babies.' On several occasions, I was told to turn off my 'jigaboo music." EEOC v. NPMG, Acquisition Sub, LLC. , No. CV 08-01790-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. Sep. 16, 2009).
• In August 2009, a Mississippi-based drilling company agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a Title VII lawsuit, alleging that four employees, three White and one Black, experienced racial harassment and retaliation while assigned to a remote drilling rig in Texas. The harassment included being subjected to racial taunts and mistreatment from Hispanic employees and supervisors and having their safety threatened because the supervisors conducted safety meetings in Spanish only and refused to interpret for them in English. Told that they needed to learn Spanish because they were in South Texas, the employees said that instead of addressing their complaints of discrimination, they were fired. The company agreed to establish an effective anti-discrimination policy and to provide anti-discrimination training to its employees. EEOC v. E&D Services, Inc. , No. SA-08-CA-0714-NSN (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2009).
• In May 2009, a masonry company agreed to pay $500,000 to settle a Title VII lawsuit alleging race and national origin harassment of Hispanic employees. The suit charged that the foremen and former superintendent referred to the company's Latino employees with derogatory terms such as "f---ing Mexicans," "pork chop," "Julio," "spics," "chico" and "wetback." In addition, former employees alleged that Hispanic workers were routinely exposed to racist graffiti, which the company never addressed. The three-year decree enjoins the company from future discrimination and retaliation on the basis of race or national origin and mandates anti-discrimination and investigation training for all of its employees and supervisors. EEOC v. Ceisel Masonry , No. 06 C 2075 (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2009); Ramirez v. Ceisel Masonry , No. 06 C 2084 (N.D. Ill. May 2009).
• In April 2009, high-end retailer Nordstrom settled an EEOC lawsuit alleging that it permitted the harassment despite complaints by Hispanic and Black employees about a department manager who said she "hated Hispanics" and that they were "lazy" and "ignorant" and that she didn't like Blacks and told one employee, "You're Black, you stink." Under the terms of the settlement, Nordstrom will pay $292,000, distribute copies of its anti-discrimination policy to its employees, and provide anti-harassment training. EEOC v. Nordstrom, Inc. , No. 07-80894-CIV-RYSKAMP/VITUNAC (S.D. Fla. April 2009).
• In July 2008, the largest independent tire companies in the nation agreed to pay $185,000 and furnish other corrective measures to settle a racial harassment lawsuit. In the lawsuit, EEOC alleged that the company subjected a Native American employee to continuous race-based harassment, which included co-workers calling him derogatory names and making insulting jokes about Native Americans over a period of years and then fired him when he continued to complain about the mistreatment. EEOC v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana, Inc. , No. 06-149-M-DWM (D. Mont. July 1, 2008).
• In June 2008, a San Jose-based manufacturer of semiconductor production equipment agreed to pay $168,000 to settle EEOC claims that it failed to stop the racial harassment of an African American assembly technician who was forced to listen to a Vietnamese coworker play and rap aloud to rap music with racially offensive lyrics and then fired the Black employee after he repeatedly complained about his work conditions. The manufacturer also agreed to amend its harassment policy to refer specifically to harassment through the playing of music, and to include offensive musical lyrics in its examples of racial harassment. EEOC v. Novellus Systems, Inc. , C-07-4787 RS (N.D. Cal. settled June 24, 2008) .
• In June 2008, a landmark New York City restaurant in Central Park settled an EEOC Title VII lawsuit filed on behalf of female, Hispanic, and Black employees for $2.2 million. EEOC had alleged that for the past eight years the restaurant engaged in racial and sexual harassment. The alleged harassment included a manager's regular use of the "n-word" to refer to the Black employees and "sp*c" or "ignorant immigrants" to refer to the Hispanic employees. Additionally, the manager asked a Black hostess to "touch and suck his penis" and inappropriately grabbed her buttocks and breasts. the restaurant. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the restaurant will establish a telephone hotline which employees may use to raise any discrimination complaints, distribute a revised policy against discrimination and retaliation, and provide training to all employees against discrimination and retaliation. EEOC v. Tavern on the Green , Civil Action No. 07- CV-8256 (S.D.N.Y. settled June 2, 2008) .
• In May 2008, the Sixth Circuit ruled that two Black male dockworkers had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The harassment in this case, in which the EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of the victims, centered on the frequent use of the term "boy" to refer to the Black male employees. The term was spray-painted on walls and doors, written in Black marker or spray painted in the locker rooms, equipment, and on a calendar in the break room over Martin Luther King's birthday, etched into bathroom walls in the terminal, and written in dust on dock surfaces, even after the employer held a sensitivity session to explain the term's racial and derogatory implications. Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc., 526 F.3d 880 (6th Cir.  2008).
• In April 2008, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's decision granting summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff's Title VII claim alleging that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The racial hostility manifested as racist graffiti, racial epithets, and the hanging of a noose at a Salt Lake City rail yard. Agreeing with the position taken by the EEOC as amicus curiae, the court of appeals held that nearly all of the racially hostile acts alleged by the plaintiff could be considered as a single hostile work environment under National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002), and that the plaintiff could obtain relief for the entire period of the hostile work environment at issue notwithstanding the fact that he failed to file suit after receiving a notice of right to sue on an earlier Title VII charge challenging the racial harassment. Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp., 520 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. Apr. 1, 2008) .
• In March 2008, the Commission affirmed the AJ's finding of race (Native American) and national origin (Cherokee Nation) discrimination, where complainant had his life threatened by a client and the agency never took necessary actions to stop the harassment. The AJ found that a customer continually harassed complainant by, among other actions, referring to complainant as a "worthless Indian, dumb Indian, and stupid." The Commission affirmed the award of $50,000 in non-pecuniary damages due to complainant's emotional suffering, restoration of leave, payment of costs, and mileage. The Commission also ordered training of responsible officials, consideration of discipline, and the posting of a notice but rejected the AJ's award of $6,903.87 in closing costs for complainant's sale of his house as being too speculative to connect to the discriminatory conduct. Hern v. Department of Agriculture , EEOC Appeal No. 0720060012 (March 10, 2008) .
• In January 2008, a Lockheed Martin facility in Hawaii settled a Title VII lawsuit for $2.5 million, the largest amount ever obtained by the EEOC for a single person in a race discrimination case. The EEOC asserted that the military contractor engaged in racial harassment and retaliation after it allegedly permitted a Latino supervisor and White co-workers to subject an African American electrician to racial jokes, slurs and threats daily for a year. Additionally, the employees allegedly told the Black electrician it would have been better if the South had won the Civil War and talked regularly about lynching and slavery. After the electrician complained about the harassment, he was terminated. In addition to the monetary settlement, the company agreed to terminate the harassers and make significant policy changes to address any future discrimination. EEOC v. Lockheed Martin , Civil No. 05-00479 SPK (D. Haw. settled Jan. 2, 2008) .
• In October 2007, EEOC obtained $290,000 from an Oklahoma-based oil drilling contractor for seven African American men who alleged that, while on an oil rig, they were subjected to a hostile work environment, which included the display of hangman nooses, derogatory racial language, and race-based name calling. EEOC v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co. , No. 3:05-cv-691 (D. Miss. 2007).
• In October 2007, the Commission decided that a federal agency had improperly dismissed a Black employee's racial harassment complaint for failure to state a claim. The employee had alleged she was subjected to a hostile work environment because the agency had rehired a former employee who had been charged with discrimination after he made a noose and hung it up in the proximity of an African American employee. The Commission decided that the employee's allegations, if true, were sufficiently severe to state a hostile work environment claim in violation of Title VII since an employer is responsible for preventing discriminatory work environments when it is aware of such danger. The case was reinstated and remanded to the agency for an investigation. Juergensen v. Dep't of Commerce , EEOC Appeal No. 0120073331 (Oct. 5, 2007).
• In April 2007, the Commission decided that a Caucasian complainant, was subjected to racial harassment over a period of two years by both managers and co-workers used various racially derogatory terms when referring to complainant. Evidence showed that management generally condoned racially related comments made by African-American supervisors and co-workers who frequently voiced a "Black versus White" mentality at the work place. The Commission ordered the agency to pay complainant $10,000.00 in compensatory damages and to provide training to all management and staff at the facility. See Brown v. United States Postal Service , EEOC Appeal No. 0720060042 (April 11, 2007).
• In April 2007, EEOC reached a $900,000 settlement in a lawsuit alleging that a geriatric center subjected 29 Black, Haitian and Jamaican employees to harassing comments because of race and national origin. The employees were also prohibited from speaking Creole, and were retaliated against by being subjected to discipline when they complained about their treatment. EEOC v. Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc. d/b/a William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion , No. 05-4061 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2007).
• In January 2007, EEOC settled a racial harassment lawsuit against AK Steel Corporation, a Fortune 500 company, for $600,000. The evidence in that case was both severe and pervasive because the workplace featured Nazi symbols, racially graphic and threatening graffiti with messages to kill Black people, displays of nooses and swastikas in work areas open to Black employees, racial slurs and epithets, an open display of KKK videos in the employee lounge areas and circulation of political literature by David Duke, a known KKK leader. EEOC v. AK Steel Corp., (Jan. 31, 2007).
• In November 2006, the EEOC resolved a Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, a nationwide meat processing company, discriminated against Black maintenance department employees at its chicken processing plant in Ashland, Alabama, by subjecting them to a racially hostile work environment, which included a "Whites Only" sign on a bathroom in the maintenance department and a padlock on the bathroom door to which only White employees were given keys. The complaint also alleged that the two Charging Parties were retaliated against when they were suspended for minor issues within a few months of complaining about racial conditions at the plant. Thirteen Black employees intervened in the Commission action alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and various state law provisions. Pursuant to a 3-year consent decree, 13 complainants would receive $871,000 and attorney's fees and costs. EEOC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., cv-05-BE-1704-E (N.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 2006).
• In July 2006, Home Depot paid $125,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The suit alleged that a Black former night crew lumberman/forklift operator was subjected to a racially hostile work environment because management condoned racial remarks by his supervisors who called him "Black dog," "Black boy," a "worthless [racial epithet]" and told him that the Supreme Court had found Black people to be "inferior." EEOC v. Home Depot USA, Inc. , No. 05-11921 (D. Mass. July 13, 2006).
• In March 2006, a commercial coating company agreed to pay $1 million to settle an EEOC case that alleged that a Black employee was subjected to racially hostile environment that included frequent verbal and physical abuse that culminated in him being choked by a noose in the company bathroom until he lost consciousness. EEOC v. Commercial Coating Serv., Inc., No. H-03-3984 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 2006).
• In February 2006, the Commission affirmed an AJ's finding that complainant had been subjected to hostile work environment discrimination based on race (African-American) when a noose was placed in his work area. Although based on a single incident, the noose was a sufficiently severe racial symbol with violent implications that equates to a death threat. As such, the incident altered the condition of complainant's employment. Complainant was awarded $35,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, restoration of annual and sick leave, and $34,505.87 in attorney's fees. The agency was ordered to provide racial harassment training to all employees at the activity. Tootle v. Navy , EEOC Appeal No. 07A40127 (Feb. 10, 2006).
• In March 2005, the Commission found that a federal employee's supervisor subjected him to hostile work environment harassment when he used a historically-offensive racist slur (n-word) in the employee's presence and at least once in reference to him; treated him less favorably than he did White employees; verbally abused him; and subjected him to hazardous working conditions because of complainant's race (African-American). EEOC also found that the supervisor violated the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII when, standing behind the federal employee, he informed all employees that if they wanted to file an EEO complaint, they had to discuss it with him first. EEOC ordered the agency to determine complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages; train the supervisor with regard to his obligations to eliminate discrimination in the federal workplace; and consider taking disciplinary action against the supervisor. Whidbee v. Department of the Navy , EEOC Appeal No. 01A40193 (March 31, 2005).
• In November 2004, in a case against an upstate New York a computer parts manufacturer, EEOC alleged that Native American employees were subjected to frequent name-calling, war whoops, and other derogatory statements (comments about being "on the warpath" and about scalpings, alcohol abuse, and living in tepees). The employees complained to several supervisors and the Human Resources Department, and the offending employees were occasionally warned, but the hostile environment continued. A consent decree required the company to pay $200,000 to the victims and enjoined future discrimination; to actively recruit Native Americans for available positions; to implement and publish a policy and procedure for addressing harassment and retaliation that includes an effective complaint procedure, and to report to EEOC on complaints of retaliation and harassment based on Native American heritage. EEOC v. Dielectric Labs, Inc. (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2004), available at https://www.eeoc.gov/reports/fy-2005-annual-report-operations-and-accomplishments-office-general-counsel .
• In November 2004, the Commission decided that, although racially charged comments were only made on one day, the nature of the comments, which included several racial slurs, was sufficiently severe to render work environment hostile. Nicholas v. Department of Agriculture , EEOC Appeal No. 01A43603 (November 4, 2004).
• In September 2004, the Commission affirmed an AJ's finding that a Caucasian registered nurse had been subjected to racial harassment and constructive discharge. The AJ found that for approximately two and one-half years Black Health Technicians refused to comply with her orders while following the orders of African American nurses; that one Health Technician told complainant that she would not take orders from a White nurse; and that Technicians screamed, banged on doors, blocked complainant's exit when complainant asked for assistance. The AJ found that the harassment ultimately led to proposed disciplinary action and complainant's constructive discharge. The agency was ordered to reinstate complainant to a Registered Nurse position in a different work area, with back pay and benefits, pay complainant $10,000 in compensatory damages, and provide training to her former unit. Menard v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40004 (September 29, 2004), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05A50175 (January 18, 2005); http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/05a50175.txt .
• In October 2019, Eagle United Truck Wash, LLC, which operates truck washing facilities at truck stop locations around the United States, paid $40,000 and furnished significant equitable relief to settle a racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. According to the suit, supervisors and employees subjected an African American truck washer, the only black employee at the Milton facility for most of his employment, to racial epithets and insults despite the truck washer's complaints to management and then the company fired him on the same day that he complained. The three-year consent decree enjoins the company from engaging in or condoning race-based harassment and retaliation; requires the provision of training on federal anti-discrimination laws with an emphasis on preventing race-based harassment; and mandates reporting to the EEOC on how it handles internal complaints of race-based discrimination and the posting of a notice regarding the settlement. EEOC v. Eagle United Truck Wash, LLC , Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-1856 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2019).
• In September 2019, the owner of a wedding event space in Kansas City agreed to pay $15,000 to a former part-time employee whom EEOC alleged was the subject of a “campaign of intimidation and threats” for supporting a co-worker’s racial discrimination claim.  The EEOC lawsuit accused the owner of 28 Event Space of retaliating against an African American employee who was a witness in an earlier race discrimination claim against Profile Cabinet and Design. The wedding event owner was a part owner of the custom cabinet maker.  EEOC alleged that initially the owner offered the Black employee money and the use of a limousine if the employee agreed not to testify in the discrimination case.  When he refused, EEOC claimed the owner threatened the employee’s job and reduced his work hours.  As part of the three-year consent decree, the company also is required to create clear, understandable anti-discrimination policies, require training for the owner and employees and provide regular reports to the EEOC for the next three years.  EEOC v. 28 Event Space, LLC , Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-889 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 9, 2018).
• In June 2016, DHD Ventures Management Company Inc. will pay a total of $40,000 to settle allegations of racial harassment and retaliation. The EEOC charged that the company, a New York-based real estate management company, allowed Charles Lesine and Marlin Ware to be harassed from late 2007 to November 2011 at Grandeagle Apartments, a residential complex in Greenville, South Carolina, that DHD managed. According to the lawsuit, Lesine and Ware allegedly were subjected to unwelcome derogatory racial comments and slurs made by a White coworker, including the repeated use of the "n" word. The two employees complained to management but the harassment allegedly continued. EEOC v. DHD Ventures Mgmt. Co ., Case No. 6:15-cv-00102-TMC-KFM (D.S.C. 2016).
• In June 2016, a Minnesota-based Regis Corporation, which does business as Smart Style Family Hair Salon, paid $90,000 to resolve allegations of retaliation discrimination. According to the EEOC complaint, two employees at one of the company's North Carolina salons were allegedly fired for opposing what they reasonably believed was an unlawful employment practice. They alleged a soon-to-be salon manager told them that she did not want African-Americans working in the salon. The two employees then told an African-American candidate for an open position at the salon they believed the manager would not hire her due to her race. The company then purportedly fired the two employees, stating they had lied. The two year consent decree requires Regis to report the action it takes in response to any employee's complaint about discrimination and to post a notice to employees concerning their rights under federal, anti-discrimination laws. EEOC v. Regis Corp ., Civil Action No. 7:15-CV-00151-F (E.D. N.C. June 2016).
• In May 2016, American Casing & Equipment Inc., a Williston-based oil field service company, paid $250,000 to a Filipino worker it fired after he complained of harassment to settle a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The lawsuit alleged that since November 2012, a White manager harassed the worker of Filipino heritage by directing racial slurs ("non-white m----f----r," "non-white guy," "spic," "n----r," "monkey" and "ape") at him, jabbing him with a finger in the stomach and chest, and once urinating on his leg while he worked under a truck. No supervisor made any attempt to stop the abuse. The employee ultimately was fired after he complained to the company's safety manager about the harassment. EEOC v. for American Casing & Equipment Inc ., Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-00066 (DLH-CSM) (D.N.D. May 24, 2016).
• In September 2014, Izza Bending Tube & Wire agreed to pay $45,000 to settle an EEOC suit alleging that the company retaliated against employee Myrna Peltonen when it demoted her and reduced her salary after she refused to discriminate against an African-American employee. The Commission lawsuit charged that Izza's manager instructed Peltonen not to hire the Black employee, who was working as a temporary employee, to a permanent position, and told her to get rid of him because of his race. The EEOC's lawsuit further alleged that after Peltonen filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, she was laid off and then terminated in retaliation." The consent decree requires other equitable relief, including reporting and training. EEOC v. Izza Bending Tube & Wire, Inc. , No. 0:13-cv-02570 (D. Minn. Sep. 19, 2014).
• In March 2014, a federal district court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the EEOC and ruled that Sparx Restaurant of Menomonie, Wis., must provide back pay with interest of more than $41,000 in addition to the jury's award of damages of $15,000 to a former employee who was fired in retaliation for complaining about a racist display in the workplace. The display included a dollar bill with a noose around George Washington's neck and drawings of a man on horseback and a hooded figure with "KKK" written on his hood. After EEOC filed its case, Sparx Restaurant closed and was replaced by a Denny's franchise. The district court decided that the companies were a single employer. The court also entered a three-year injunction, enjoining the defendants from: discharging employees in retaliation for complaints about racially offensive postings in their workplace; failing to adopt policies that explicitly prohibit actions made unlawful under Title VII; failing to adopt an investigative process with regard to discrimination claims; and failing to provide annual training regarding Title VII to Chris Brekken, who owns all interests in the three corporate defendants, and other managers. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held for the first time held that a tax-offset award was appropriate in a Title VII claim when the lump-sum award place the employee in a higher tax bracket. The court also held that the new entity operating as a Denny's franchise was liable as a successor. EEOC v. Northern Star Hospitality, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00214 (E.D. Wis. Judgment filed Feb. 25, 2014), aff'dl, EEOC v. Northern Star Hospitality, Inc. , 777 F.3d 898 (7th Circ. 2015).
• In December 2012, an office and technology supply store paid $85,000 and target recruitment of African-Americans and Hispanics to settle a retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that OfficeMax violated federal law when its store manager retaliated against a sales associate after the associate complained that he had been terminated because he is Hispanic. The store manager was required to immediately reinstate the sales associate, but then engaged in a series of retaliatory actions designed to generate reasons to terminate him again and/or force the sales associate to resign, the agency alleged. In addition to the monetary settlement, the four year consent decree contained injunctive relief: OfficeMax agreed to target additional recruitment efforts in the Sarasota/Bradenton area to reach more African American and Hispanic applicants, provide training for its management and human resource personnel in three locations in the Bradenton/Sarasota area on racial harassment and retaliation, and will report future internal discrimination complaints to the EEOC. EEOC v. OfficeMax North America , Case No. 8:12-cv-00643-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla. Dec. x, 2012).
• In April 2012, a real estate company in Little Rock agreed to pay $600,000 to former employees and a class of applicants to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC's suit alleged that the company excluded Black applicants for jobs at the company's Little Rock location based upon their race. The EEOC also alleged that the company retaliated against other employees and former employees for opposing or testifying about the race discrimination, by demoting and forcing one out of her job and by suing others in state court. In addition to the monetary relief, the three-year consent decree requires the company to provide mandatory annual three-hour training on race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII; have its president or another officer appear at the training to address the company's non-discrimination policy and the consequences for discriminating in the workplace; maintain records of race discrimination and retaliation complaints; and provide annual reports to the EEOC. EEOC v. Bankers Asset Management, Inc. , No. 4:10-CV-002070-SWW (E.D. Ark. Apr. 18, 2012).
• In March 2012, a northern Nevada company agreed to pay $50,000 to a Black driver to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging racial harassment and retaliation. In its complaint, the EEOC said the driver was subjected to racial slurs by a supervisor and taunts by White employees. In one instance, the EEOC says a co-worker flaunted a swastika tattoo and talked about keeping the White race "pure." The lawsuit alleged that the driver was fired after complaining twice in one month about the treatment. EEOC v. Sierra Restroom Solutions, LLC , Civ. No. 3:09-CV-00537 (D. Nev. Mar. 20, 2012).
• In March 2012, a Warren, Mich.-based painting company which does business in several states, will pay $65,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC had charged that the company unlawfully retaliated against an employee for objecting to race discrimination. In its lawsuit, the EEOC said that Atsalis retaliated against a journeyman painter, who complained about the use of the "N-word" by his foreman, by not bringing him back to work for the 2008 work season. In addition to the monetary award, the decree requires the company to provide ongoing anti-discrimination training to all of the company's officers, managers, supervisors and human resources personnel; create a new anti-discrimination policy; institute new procedures for handling discrimination complaints; and file reports with the EEOC regarding compliance with the decree's requirements. EEOC v. Atsalis Bros. Painting Co. , Civil Action No. 11-cv-11296 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2012).
• In November 2011, a furniture company operating in several locations in Puerto Rico, agreed to pay $40,000 and furnish other relief to settle a charge of retaliation at a worksite in San Juan. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, a Puerto Rican store manager allegedly harassed a dark-complexioned Puerto Rican sales associate because of his skin color (e.g., taunting him about his color and asking why he was "so Black") and then fired him for complaining. In addition to requiring a payment of damages, the consent decree settling the suit prohibits the furniture company from further retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination and requires the company to amend its current anti-discrimination policy to conform to EEOC policy and to provide four hours of anti-discrimination training to all Koper employees, including management personnel, on a biannual basis. EEOC v. Koper Furniture, Inc. , Case No. 09-1563 (JAG) (D.P.R. consent decree approved Nov. 7, 2011)
• In April 2011, a long-term care facility located approximately four miles from Little Rock, Ark agreed to pay $22,000 in back pay and compensatory damages to settle an EEOC retaliation case. EEOC charged that the facility violated Title VII when it fired a housekeeping supervisor allegedly because she had complained that she found certain comments by her supervisor racist and that she believed a watermelon-eating contest in the workplace had racist overtones. The EEOC further alleged that, shortly after she complained, she was discharged for supposedly making "false, defamatory, and malicious statements" about a supervisor. Under the two-year consent decree, the company is enjoined from engaging in retaliation, must instate a new policy on retaliation, and provide two hours of Title VII (including retaliation) training to all personnel in Little Rock. In addition, the company must submit two written reports to the EEOC regarding any future retaliation complaints and all pertinent information related to potential complaints. The consent decree also requires the company to post a remedial notice for one year and to notify any potential successors of the consent decree. EEOC v. StoneRidge Health and Rehab Center, LLC , Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-1414 JMM (E.D. Ark. consent decree filed April 25, 2011).
• In February 2011, the EEOC settled a suit against a Portland-based seafood processor and distributor for $85,000 on behalf of a warehouse worker. The lawsuit asserts that, after the warehouse worker spoke to management about race discrimination because a non-Hispanic co-worker received a larger raise, he was told that if he was going to accuse the company of discrimination, they "should part ways." According to the terms of the settlement, the seafood distributor agreed to pay the employee $85,000 and redraft its policies on discrimination and retaliation as well as provide employee training on workplace discrimination. EEOC v. Pacific Seafood Co., Inc. , No. cv-08-1143-ST (D. Or. settled Feb. 3, 2011) .
• In November 2010, a nationwide provider of engineering and janitorial services to commercial clients entered into a 4-year consent decree paying $90,000 in backpay and compensatory damages to settle the EEOC's claim that it discharged a building services engineer at a mall in Bethesda, Maryland in retaliation for complaining of race and sex discrimination. EEOC alleged that the engineer reported to his supervisor that the mall's operations manager was engaging in race discrimination and sexual harassment; the supervisor told the engineer to ignore the operations manager's conduct, and offered to relocate the engineer. EEOC also alleged that when the engineer declined to relocate, the provider discharged him. The decree also requires the provider to draft and distribute written polices against employment discrimination in English and Spanish, which provide for effective complaint and investigation procedures, including a toll-free number and e-mail address for complaints, to all employees and independent contractors who work for defendant in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. The company will name an EEO officer to receive complaints of discrimination and retaliation, and starting in January 2011, and every 6 months thereafter, will report to EEOC and to defendant's vice president of national operations on complaints of discrimination and retaliation received from applicants and employees in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia and the outcome. Lastly, the company will provide discrimination and retaliation training of at least 2 hours to supervisors and managers in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. EEOC v. Crown Energy Services, Inc. , No. PJM 8:09-CV-2572 (D. Md. Nov. 30, 2010) .
• In September 2010, the EEOC sued an oil well servicing contractor for terminating an African-American employee allegedly because of his race and for complaining about racial discrimination. After being subjected to racial slurs and witnessing a supervisor display a noose with a black stuffed animal hanging from it, the employee complained. Subsequent to the complaints, the employee was fired. EEOC v. Basic Energy Services L P , No. 5:10-cv-01497 (W.D. La. filed Sept. 28, 2010) .
• In September 2010, the EEOC filed suit against a Roanoke-based hair salon chain for allegedly firing an African American hair stylist for complaining about an assistant manager's racist comments. According to the EEOC's complaint, the assistant manager subjected the Black stylist to racist slurs in two separate incidents occurring in March and April 2008. In each incident, the assistant manager made references to African-Americans using the N-word. On April 24, 2008, the Black stylist met with her operations manager and salon manager and complained to both supervisors about the assistant manager's offensive remarks. The EEOC alleges that several weeks later, on May 17, 2008 the salon manager discharged the stylist in retaliation for her race-related complaint. EEOC v. Tomlin Hair Care, Inc., dba Cost Cutters Family Hair Care , Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-43 (W.D. Va. filed Sept. 23, 2010) .
• In August 2010, a North Carolina poultry processor entered a two-year consent decree agreeing to pay $40,000 to resolve an EEOC case alleging that the company engaged in unlawful retaliation. EEOC had asserted that the company gave an African American employee an unjustifiably negative performance evaluation shortly after she filed two internal complaints with management about her White supervisor's use of racially offensive language about her and in her presence and when it discharged her two weeks after she filed an EEOC charge because of her dissatisfaction with the company's response to her discrimination complaints. In accordance with the consent decree, the company must adopt, implement, and post a formal, written anti-discrimination policy, provide annual Title VII training for all managers and supervisors and report to the EEOC semi-annually on any instances where employees opposed unlawful employer practices. EEOC v. Mountaire Farms of North Carolina Corp. , Civil Action No. 7:09-CV-00147 (E.D.N.C. August 6, 2010)
• In October 2007, the Commission obtained $2 million for approximately 50 claimants in this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant subjected employees in its three Illinois restaurant/gift stores to sex and race discrimination and retaliation, causing the constructive discharge of some employees. Female employees were subjected to offensive sexual comments and touching by managers and coworkers; Black employees to racially derogatory language, and directives to wait on customers that White employees refused to serve and to work in the smoking section; and a White employee to racially offensive language because of her association with a Black employee. The 2-year consent decree prohibits the company from engaging in sex and race discrimination and retaliation at the three stores. EEOC v. David Maus Toyota , Civil Action No. 6:05cv-1452-ORL-28-KRS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2007) .
• In July 2006, EEOC reached a $100,000 settlement in its Title VII lawsuit against a Springfield, Missouri grocery chain alleging that a Black assistant manager was subjected to racially derogatory comments and epithets and was permanently suspended in retaliation for complaining about his store manager's racial harassment of him and the manager's sexual harassment of another worker. EEOC v. Roswil, Inc. d/b/a Price Cutters Supermarket , No. 06-3287-CV-S-WAK (W.D. Mo. July 27, 2006).
• In November 2005, the EEOC obtained a $317,000 settlement in a Title VII case alleging that an extended stay hotel business discharged and otherwise retaliated against a district manager (DM) for six properties in Georgia, Alabama, and Virginia because she complained about race discrimination. The DM, a White female, e-mailed Defendant's Chief Operating Officer in September 2001 expressing her concerns about the exclusion of African Americans and other racial minorities from management positions. Despite being considered a stellar performer, following her e-mail, the DM was reprimanded, threatened with a PIP, accused of being disloyal to the company, and terminated. The 24-month consent decree applies to all of Defendant's facilities in Georgia and include requirements that Defendant create and institute a nonretaliation policy, advise all employees that it will not retaliate against them for complaining about discrimination, and instruct all management and supervisory personnel about the terms of the decree and provide them with annual training on Title VII's equal employment obligations, including nonretaliation. EEOC v. InTown Suites Management, Inc ., No. 1:03-CV-1494-RLV (N.D. Ga. Nov. 21, 2005).
• In February 2005, EEOC settled a retaliation case against Burger King for $65,000, on behalf of a Caucasian manager who was terminated after refusing to comply with a Black customer's preference that a "White boy" not make her sandwich. EEOC v. Star City LLC d/b/a Burger King , No. 6:03-cv-00077 (W.D. Va. consent decree filed Feb. 11, 2005) .
• In December 2019, DSW Shoe Warehouse Inc., a nationwide shoe retailer headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, paid $40,000 and furnished equitable relief throughout the stores in its Midwest Great Lakes Region (including Michigan and Ohio) to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC alleged that DSW intentionally discriminated against a former assistant manager at the company's Warrensville Heights, Ohio retail store because she is Black when it terminated the assistant manager after she had been subjected to race-based discipline and unequal terms and conditions of employment. The 18-month consent decree enjoined DSW from future race discrimination and unlawful retaliation; required that DSW will provide training on federal laws and store policies prohibiting discrimination and retaliation and reporting regarding any internal complaints of alleged race discrimination or retaliation. EEOC v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc. , Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01122 (S.D. Ohio  consent decree filed Dec. 4, 2019).
• In September 2019, a commercial truck washing facility paid $40,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit accusing the owner of firing an employee because he is Black and had reported that he had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment.  According to the lawsuit, the employee who was the only African American worker at the site was daily subjected to racial slurs by coworkers which management refused to address. Along with a monetary settlement, the three-year consent decree requires the company to disseminate and post a modified anti-discrimination policy; designate specific individuals to whom raced-based discrimination complaints should be directed; provide at least three hours of anti-discrimination training by a compliance specialist for all management and supervisory personnel; and submit a written report to the EEOC after one year identifying all race-based discrimination complaints. EEOC v. Eagle United Truck Wash , LLC , Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-1856 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 20, 2019).
• In January 2017, Hospman LLC paid $35,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Hospman fired several Black employees in August 2012 after taking over management responsibility of a Fort Myers hotel. The EEOC charged that Hospman's former chief executive officer ordered the housekeeping supervisor to terminate all of the housekeepers - all but one of whom were Black - because he did not work with "those kind of people." He also asked the housekeeping supervisor about her race and, upon learning that she was Black, fired her as well. The only black front desk attendant also was terminated, while other non-Black front desk workers were allowed to continue their employment. Under the consent decree resolving the EEOC's claims, Hospman also will revise policies regarding race discrimination complaints as set forth in its employee handbook; conduct annual training of its managers and supervisors on the requirements of Title VII; post a notice about the lawsuit for its employees; and report to the EEOC regarding complaints of race discrimination and the company's employment practices. EEOC v. Hospman, LLC , Case No. 2:15-cv-00419-JES-CM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2017).
• In September 2016, SFI of Tennessee LLC agreed to pay $210,000 to settle allegations of race discrimination. The EEOC charged SFI, a fabricator and supplier of heavy-gauge steel and value-added products, with discharging three black employees on the same day because of their race. The three employees worked in the supply chain department at SFI and allegedly had no performance issues before their discharges. According to EEOC, SFI replaced the black employees with white employees. The agency alleges these actions were motivated by race. Purported conduct of this nature violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to monetary relief, the company must provide race discrimination training to all employees. EEOC v. SFI of Tenn. LLC , No. 2:14-cv-02740 (W.D. Tenn. Sep. 7, 2016).
• In June 2016, Bloom at Belfair, a nursing home in Bluffton, South Carolina, paid $40,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company discriminated against an African-American activities director when it fired her in September 2014 because of her race. The EEOC charged that the director's firing followed the termination of other African-American managers at the facility and was part of a company plan to eliminate African-Americans from management. In addition to the monetary relief, the EEOC consent decree requires the company to provide EEO training and to post a notice about the lawsuit in the workplace. EEOC v. Bloom at Belfair , No. 9:15-cv-04047-CWH-BM (D.S.C. June 9, 2016).
• In April 2016, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court in an employment discrimination case alleging race and age discrimination in violation of Title VII and the ADEA, respectively. The EEOC filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the pro se plaintiff, a 65-year old white female front desk clerk, who repeatedly had been told she was "too old" and "the wrong color" by the hotel general manager who terminated her. The Commission argued that, contrary to the district court's requirement that the plaintiff needed to identify comparators or a replacement to establish a prima facie case, the discriminatory comments were direct evidence of animus and sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination as well as raise triable issues of pretext sufficient to overcome summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit essentially agreed and concluded that the discriminatory comments constituted circumstantial evidence of discrimination sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Kilgore v. Trussville Dev ., No. 15-11850 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2016).
• In August 2015, the EEOC won a judgment of more than $365,000 against the Bliss Cabaret strip club and its parent company this week after a Black bartender was allegedly fired based on her race. In its lawsuit, the EEOC said the Clearwater strip club and its successor corporation, Executive Gentlemen's Club, fired a bartender because its owner said he didn't want a Black bartender working at the club. The EEOC claimed that former manager who hired her, was suspended and then fired after he refused to comply with the owner's request. The awarded relief included punitive damages, compensatory damages, back pay, interest and tax-penalty offsets. EEOC v. AJ 3860, LLC, d/b/a The Executive Gentlemen's Club, and Southeast Showclubs, LLC , Civ. No. 8:14-cv-1621-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. default judgment filed Aug. 11, 2015).
• Chapman University, a private university in Orange, Calif., paid $75,000 and furnished other relief to settle an EEOC race discrimination. The EEOC had charged that Chapman's George L. Argyros School of Business & Economics (ASBE) discriminated against Stephanie Dellande, an assistant professor of marketing, because of her race. The EEOC contended that Dellande was denied both tenure and promotion to associate professor in 2006 because she is African-American, despite strong recommendations in her favor by many professional peers. The university discharged her in June 2008 upon a denial of her tenure appeal. According to the EEOC's suit, Dellande was the first Black professor to have been allowed to apply for tenure at the ASBE, and was subjected to a higher standard for obtaining tenure and promotion than her non-Black peers. EEOC v. Chapman Univ. , No. 8:10-cv-1419(JAK) (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2014).
• In September 2012, a Rosemont, Ill.-based food product distributor paid $165,000 and furnished other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that the food distributor violated federal law by firing an African-American employee who worked at its Memphis facility because of his race. Specifically, the EEOC said, the company discharged the black employee after he failed to stop a Caucasian driver who reported to work under the influence of alcohol from making deliveries on his route. US Foods did not terminate the Caucasian driver for being under the influence, or another Caucasian safety specialist who saw the driver at the first stop on his route. Instead, the company discharged the white driver later for an unrelated matter. EEOC v. US Foods, Inc. fka U.S. Foodservice, Inc. , Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-02861 (W.D. Tenn. Sep. 12, 2012).
• In April 2012, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCSR) violated Title VII when engaged in race discrimination by terminating two Black employees because of work rule violations and retaining their similarly-situated White co-drivers who were involved in the same incidents leading to Black employees' dismissals. The Court also took issue with KCSR's failure to document the reasons for the terminations and inability to identify the decisionmaker. The Court cautioned: "KCSR is no stranger to Title VII employment discrimination litigation, and it would behoove KCSR to discharge its burden with greater acuity." EEOC v. KCSR , No. 09-30558 (5 th Cir. 2012).
• In July 2011, a global manufacturer and seller of chemical products in El Dorado, Ark., will pay $80,000 and furnish other relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging the company engaged in race discrimination when it terminated Black employees based upon discriminatory and subjective evaluations. In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit enjoins the company from terminating employees in its El Dorado central location's Inorganic Bromine Unit on the basis of race. The company also must provide race and color discrimination training to all supervisory and management personnel in its IOB Unit and post a notice reinforcing the company's policies on Title VII. EEOC v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp. , Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-01042 (W.D. Ark. July 12, 2011) .
• In February 2011, the EEOC filed suit against an electric company alleging race discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the company's allegations that the Black journeyman electrician was in charge of a crew that damaged light fixtures is a pretext. EEOC contends that the company's superintendant and foreman, both White, were actually in charge of the crew that caused the damage. The agency maintains that neither they nor the non-Black employees who actually caused the damage to the light fixture were terminated. EEOC v. Salem Electric Co. , Civil Action No. 1-11-cv-00119 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2011) .
• In December 2010, a cosmetic laboratory settled an EEOC lawsuit charging discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and retaliation against a Black employee for $30,000. The laboratory hired the employee, a British subject born in Zimbabwe, for a full-time internship. Upon arrival, her employer realized she was Black and her supervisors gave her no direction and very few assignments despite her requests for work. The company's other two interns, who were White, participated in projects and worked closely with supervisors. When the Black intern raised concerns about unequal treatment with management, she was fired. In addition to the damages payment, the settlement requires that the laboratory adopt a non-discrimination policy and complaint procedure and conduct anti-discrimination training for its staff. EEOC v. Northwest Cosmetic Labs LLC , Civil Action No. 10-608-CWD (D. Idaho Dec. 29, 2010) .
• In May 2009, the federal district court in Minnesota dismissed the EEOC's lawsuit alleging that a Minneapolis-based company provided contract human resources services to more than 37,000 entities, allegedly disciplined and fired a Ph.D. social worker because of his race (African American) and his complaints about race discrimination. According to the EEOC, the six-year employee had his work scrutinized more critically than non-Black employees, was placed on a performance improvement plan because of his race, and was fired when he complained despite his excellent performance history and numerous awards. EEOC v. Ceridian Corp. , Civil Action No. 07-cv-4086 (D. Minn. May 26, 2009) .
• In February 2008, the Commission upheld an AJ's finding of race and color discrimination where a probationary employee was terminated from his position of Part-Time Flexible Letter Carrier. Although complainant was a probationary employee, the record reflected that he worked at the same level or better than other full-time carriers. The Commission found that, as no other probationary employee was available as a comparator, complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination by creating an inference of race and color discrimination. Further, the Commission found that the agency failed to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating complainant because the responsible management official failed to specify a standard to which complainant was compared when he determined that complainant was not performing at an acceptable level. Complainant was reinstated to his position with backpay. Artis v. United States Postal Service , EEOC Appeal No. 0720070032 (February 4, 2008).
• In October 2007, a trial court determined that EEOC is entitled to a trial on its claim that a Toyota car dealership engaged in a wholesale elimination of Blacks in management when it demoted and ultimately terminated all of its African American managers because of their race. See EEOC v. David Maus Toyota , Civil Action No. 6:05cv-1452-ORL-28-KRS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2007).
• In July 2007, the EEOC received a favorable jury verdict in its Title VII lawsuit against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P) alleging that a Black senior manager terminated a White manager because of his race. The jury concluded the White manager was discharged solely because of his race and awarded approximately $85,000 in monetary relief. EEOC v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. , C.A. No. 1:05-cv-01211-JFM (D.Md. verdict filed July 30, 2007).
• In December 2005, the Commission resolved for $145,000 this Title VII case alleging that a global company discharged a traffic clerk in a Colorado warehouse, based on his race (Black) and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The traffic clerk asserted that, prior to his discharge, his coworker, a White woman, expounded on her view that African Americans are more athletic than Whites because they were inbred as slaves and have an extra muscle in their legs, that she was afraid to be around certain people of color, and that a customer was entitled use the "n-word" in reference to the clerk based on freedom of speech. The clerk told her she should take her hood off and not burn a cross on his lawn. Defendant investigated the racial incidents, but failed to interview two Black employee witnesses and fired the clerk in part for the hood and cross comment he made. Neither the White coworker nor the supervisors who witnessed the racial incidents were disciplined. The 3-year consent decree enjoins defendant's Golden, Colorado facility from discriminating on the basis of race and from retaliation. EEOC v. Exel, Inc. , No. 04-CV-2005-RPM-BNB (D. Col. Dec. 20, 2005).

TYPES OF RACE/COLOR DISCRIMINATION

• In June 2015, a Laughlin hotel has agreed to pay $150,000 to six Latino or brown-skinned workers who were "subjected to a barrage of highly offensive and derogatory comments about their national origin and/or skin color since 2006." A federal lawsuit filed by the EEOC alleged that supervisors amd coworkers were "constantly" targeted with slurs such as "taco bell," "bean burrito" and "f____ aliens." The lawsuit also said workers were told not to speak Spanish on break, at least one employee lost his job after complaining about the treatment, and the company failed to correct the problems. In addition to monetary relief, the four-year consent decree required Pioneer Hotel must hire a consultant to help implement policies, procedures and training for all workers to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation. The company also will receive additional training on its responsibilities under Title VII, will have to immediately report complaints to the human resources department, and must create a centralized system to track complaints. EEOC v. Pioneer Hotel, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Hotel and Gambling Hall , Case No. 2:11-cv-01588-LRH-GWF (D. Nev. June 17, 2015).
• In June 2015, Pioneer Hotel, Inc. in Laughlin, Nevada agreed to pay $150,000 and furnish other relief to settle a national origin and color discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC charged that a class of Latino and/or brown-skinned workers was subjected to a barrage of highly offensive and derogatory comments about their national origin and/or skin color since at least 2006. Housekeeping and security department staffers in particular were constantly the targets of slurs by several supervisors and co-workers. In addition, the EEOC asserted that Latino / brown-skinned workers were told not to speak Spanish during their break times. Pioneer failed to stop and rectify the harassment and discrimination despite repeated complaints by the Latino / brown-skinned workers. Pioneer entered into a four-year consent decree that prohibits Pioneer from creating, facilitating or permitting a hostile work environment for employees who are Latino or darker-skinned. Additionally, the hotel agreed to hire an outside equal employment opportunity consultant to ensure that the company implements effective policies, procedures and training for all employees to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Pioneer management will receive additional training on its responsibilities under Title VII; be required to immediately report complaints to the human resources department; create a centralized system to track complaints; and be held accountable for failing to take appropriate action. Notice of consent decree will be visibly posted at the hotel. EEOC v. Pioneer Hotel, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Hotel and Gambling Hall , Case No. 2:11-cv-01588-LRH-GWF (D. Nev. settlement June 18, 2015).
• In March 2012, a Fairfax County, Va.-based stone contracting company agreed to pay $40,000 and furnish other significant relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging national origin, religion and color discrimination. According to the EEOC's suit, an estimator and assistant project manager was subjected to derogatory comments from his supervisors, project manager and the company's owner on the basis of his national origin (Pakistani), religion (Islam), and color (brown). The lawsuit indicated that the comments occurred almost daily and included things like telling the estimator he was the same color as human feces. The lawsuit also alleged that the estimator was told that his religion (Islam), was "f---ing backwards," and "f---ing crazy," and was asked why Muslims are such "monkeys." Pursuant to the three-year consent decree enjoining the company from engaging in any further discrimination against any person on the basis of color, national origin, or religion, the contracting company also agreed to redistribute the company's anti-harassment policy to each of its current employees; post its anti-harassment policies in all of its facilities and work sites; provide anti-harassment training to its managers, supervisors and employees; and post a notice about the settlement. EEOC v. Rugo Stone, LLC , Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-915 (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 2012).
• In April 2011, the EEOC found that the transportation department engaged in race and color discrimination when it failed to select the Complainant, the Acting Division Secretary, for the position of Division Secretary. The EEOC found the Agency's explanation to be "so fraught with contradiction as not to be credible," and thus, a pretext for discrimination. The EEOC noted that Complainant discussed her experience as Acting Division Secretary in her KSA responses, and, contrary to the Agency's assertion, made numerous references to acting as a Division Secretary in her application. The EEOC ordered the placement of Complainant into the Division Secretary position, with appropriate back pay and benefits, and payment of attorney's fees and costs. Bowers v. Dep't of Transp ., EEOC Appeal No. 0720100034 (Apr. 15, 2011).
• In February 2009, a discount retail chain agreed to pay $7,500 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit alleging that Title VII was violated when a light skinned Black female manager subjected darker skinned African American employees to a hostile and abusive work environment because of their color. The lawsuit alleged that the manager told one employee she looked as "Black as charcoal" and repeatedly called her "charcoal" until she quit. The parties entered a consent decree that enjoins the company from engaging in color discrimination or retaliation. Pursuant to the consent decree, the retail chain's store manager and assistant managers must receive training on color discrimination, the chain must keep records on any complaint of color discrimination and all information related to the complaint, and it must submit reports on these matters to the EEOC. EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. , No. 1:07-cv-06996 (N.D. Ill. settled Feb. 17, 2009) .
• In April 2008, a national video store entered a consent decree to pay $80,000 and to provide neutral references for the claimant in resolution of the EEOC's Title VII lawsuit against it. The EEOC alleged that the store engaged in color discrimination when a Bangladeshi employee who was assigned to be store manager of a Staten Island location allegedly was told by her district supervisor that Staten Island was a predominantly White neighborhood and that she should change her dark skin color if she wanted to work in the area. EEOC asserted that the supervisor also allegedly told her that she really should be working in Harlem with her dark skin color and threatened to terminate her if she did not accept a demotion and a transfer to the Harlem store. The employee also was subjected to national origin discrimination based on her name and accent when the district supervisor allegedly excluded the employee from staff meetings because he said the other employees could not understand her accent and asked her to change her name because the customers could not pronounce it. The consent decree enjoins the video store from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin and requires the store to post a remedial notice in the store in question and the EEO Poster in all locations across the country. EEOC v. Blockbuster, Inc. , C.A. No. 1:07-cv-02221 (S.D.N.Y. filed settled Apr. 7, 2008) .
• In May 2006, the Commission won a Title VII case filed on behalf of Asian Indian legal aliens who were victims of human trafficking, enslavement, and job segregation because of their race, national origin, and dark-skinned color. Chellen & EEOC v. John Pickle Co., Inc. , 434 F.Supp.2d 1069 (N.D. Okl. 2006). [1]
• In August 2003, the EEOC obtained a $40,000 settlement on behalf of an African American former employee who was discriminated against based on his dark skin color by a light skinned African American manager, and terminated when he complained to corporate headquarters. EEOC v. Applebee's Int'l Inc. , No. 1:02-CV-829 (D. Ga. Aug. 7, 2003).
• In June 2015, the EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of a pro se plaintiff whose race and age discrimination case was dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case. The Commission argued in this appeal that the district court erred in dismissing the case because the general manager's repeated references to the plaintiff's race and age, such as "you're the wrong color" and "you're too old" along with plaintiff's supervisor's comment to her, "old white bi…" shortly before the general manager and supervisor terminated plaintiff were sufficient to establish a prima facie case and to provide evidence of pretext. Kilgore v. Trussville Develop. , LLC, No. 15-11850 (11th Cir. brief filed June 22, 2015).
• In September 2012, the County of Kauai in Hawaii paid $120,000 to settle a federal charge of race harassment filed with the EEOC. A former attorney for the County of Kauai's Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, who is Caucasian, alleged that she was harassed due to her race by a top-level manager. The manager allegedly made continually disparaging comments to the former attorney, saying that she needed to assimilate more into the local culture and break up with her boyfriend at the time, also White, in favor of a local boy. The EEOC ultimately found reasonable cause to believe that the county violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the harassment to which the former attorney was subjected. Following the determination, the County of Kauai entered into an over two-year conciliation agreement with the EEOC and the alleged victim. Aside from the monetary relief, the county agreed to establish policies and complaint procedures dealing with discrimination and harassment in the workplace and to provide live EEO training to all managers and supervisors. The county further agreed to post notices on the matter on all bulletin boards throughout the county and to permit the disclosure of the settlement.
• In September 2012, the County of Kauai in Hawaii agreed to pay $120,000 to settle an EEOC charge of race harassment, alleging that a Caucasian former attorney for the County's Office of the Prosecuting Attorney was subjected to racially disparaging comments by a top-level manager. The manager allegedly referred to the Caucasian attorney as haole, and advised the former attorney that she needed to assimilate more into the local culture and break up with her boyfriend at the time, also White, in favor of a local boy. Aside from the monetary relief, the county agreed to establish policies and complaint procedures dealing with discrimination and harassment in the workplace and to provide live EEO training to all managers and supervisors. The county further agreed to post notices on the matter on all bulletin boards throughout the county and to permit the disclosure of the settlement.
• In June 2011, a national women's off-priced clothing retailer agreed to pay $246,500 and furnish other relief to 32 class members to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. EEOC had alleged that the retailer denied employment to Caucasian applicants since early 2007. During that time, the EEOC contended, the retailer regularly hired Black entry-level applicants for sales positions, but excluded White applicants who were equally or better qualified. The store manager allegedly told one applicant that the store "does not hire White people." EEOC v. Dots, LLC , No. 2:10-cv-00318-JVB-APR (N.D. Ind. June 3, 2011) .
• In July 2010, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the EEOC's rulings on race discrimination and retaliation claims in a case brought by a White "policymaking level" employee under the Government Employee Rights Act. John Linehan contested his removal as chief deputy coroner by the elected coroner, who is African American. Among other reasons for removal, the coroner testified that he disagreed with Linehan's attempts to discipline certain subordinate employees. The Court decided that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission's determination that the coroner's reasons for Linehan's demotion and subsequent termination were pretextual. In its view, the coroner's "lack of credibility, combined with his stated preference for employing African-Americans and his actions taken in furtherance of that goal, was sufficient for the EEOC to find that Linehan was subjected to race discrimination." However, the court vacated the $200,000 compensatory damages award as excessive and ruled that the EEOC and Linehan either could accept the remitted amount of $20,000 or hold a new hearing on the issue. Marion County v. EEOC & Linehan , No. 09-3595 (7th Cir. July 27, 2010) .
• In May 2009, the fast food giant Jack in the Box has agreed to pay $20,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging that the company did not take prompt action after a White hostess at its Nashville restaurant complained she was being harassed by Black co-workers who called her racial epithets and insulted her when they learned she was pregnant with a mixed-race child. EEOC v. Jack in the Box , No. 3:08-cv-009663 (M.D. Tenn. settled May 19, 2009).
• In April 2009, a private historically Black college located in Columbia, S.C. agreed to settle a Title VII lawsuit alleging that it discriminated against three White faculty members because of their race when it failed torenew their teaching contracts for the 2005-2006 school year, effectively terminating them. EEOC v. Benedict College , No. 3:09-cv-00905-JFA-JRM (D.S.C. April 8, 2009).
• In November 2007, the district court ruled in favor of the EEOC in its Title VII suit alleging that a Texas transportation shuttle service discriminated against African American drivers in favor of native African drivers by denying them the more profitable routes, sending them to destinations where no passengers awaited pickup, and misappropriating tips earned by the Black American drivers and instead giving them to the African drivers. The judgment prohibits Ethio Express's President, Berhane T. Tesfamariam , and his business partner Mohammed Bedru from engaging in other discriminatory practices in the future. The judgment also assessed $37,197.00 in monetary damages against Ethio Express. EEOC v. Ethio Express Shuttle Service, Inc. dba Texans Super Shuttle , No. H-06-1096 (S.D. Tex. judgment entered Nov. 2007) .
• In July 2006, EEOC settled a Title VII action against a Dallas-based HIV service agency, in which four Black employees were allegedly racially harassed by the center's founder and former Executive Director, who is also African American. The persistent same-race harassment - which was reported to management and the Board of Directors - included graphic language, racial slurs and pejorative insults. Although it ceased operations, the agency agreed to pay $200,000 to the aggrieved employees. EEOC v. Renaissance III , No. 3:05-1063-B (N.D. Tex. July 19, 2006).
• In September 1998, an EEOC AJ properly decided that a Black male hospital director who abused all employees was not insulated from liability for racially harassing an African American female where evidence showed that she was the target of more egregious and public abuse than other employees. Evidence revealed that the director told her he only hired because she is a Black woman, he often used profanity toward her, referred to her by race and gender slurs, singled her out for verbal abuse in front of other employees, told plaintiff to "get your Black ass out of here", and told her and other Black managers they better not file EEO complaints. Veterans Admin. , EEOC No. 140-97-8374x-RNS (Sept. 21, 1998).
• In December 2016, the EEOC affirmed the Administrative Judge's (AJ) finding of race and age discrimination involving a 47-year old Black applicant. Following a hearing, the AJ found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agency) discriminated against Complainant on the bases of race and age when it did not select him for a
• Contracting Officer position. The AJ determined that Complainant's qualifications were plainly superior to the Selectee's qualifications in that Complainant had more years of contracting experience, had contracting experience involving more complex matters and higher monetary amounts, and had more years of supervisory experience. The AJ also found that the Selecting Official's testimony about the Selectee's qualifications was not credible and was not supported by the documentation in the record. On appeal, the Commission concluded that the AJ's finding was supported by substantial evidence, and agreed with the AJ that the Agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting Complainant was a pretext for race and age discrimination. While the Agency asserted that the Selecting Official's selection history precluded a finding of discrimination, the Commission stated that selection history is not controlling, and the AJ reasonably relied upon Complainant's prior performance appraisal as an indicator of his performance. Further, the AJ was entitled to draw a reasonable inference from the fact that the Selecting Official did not contact Complainant's supervisor despite having contacted the Selectee's most recent supervisor. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to offer Complainant the position, pay him appropriate back pay and benefits, and pay him $5,000 in proven compensatory damages. Neil M. v. Dep't of Agric ., EEOC Appeal No. 0720140005 (Dec. 9, 2016).
• In March 2012, a financial services company formerly located in various cities in Michigan agreed to settle for $55,000 an age and race discrimination suit brought by the EEOC. The EEOC lawsuit alleged that that Wells Fargo Financial failed to promote a highly qualified 47-year-old African-American loan processor on the basis of age and race. The loan processor applied for a promotion but was passed over for five lesser qualified Caucasian women aged between 23 and 30 who were based in various other branch offices, even though the processor had the best combination of relevant, objective scores that measured productivity, was "loan processor of the year" for 2007, the year immediately preceding the promotion decision, worked at the one of the largest and most profitable offices in the relevant district, and was the "go-to person" for the district on loan processing. EEOC v. Wells Fargo Financial Michigan, Inc. , Case No. 2:10-CV-13517 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2012).
• In November 2011, one of the nation's largest retailers will pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle the EEOC's race, sex and age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. According to the EEOC lawsuit, an over 40, African-American female employee who worked in loss prevention at several Sears stores in the Oklahoma City area, from 1982 until her termination in March of 2010, was passed over for promotion to supervisor several times beginning in 2007 in favor of younger, less experienced, White males. Sears allegedly retaliated against Johnson for her initial EEOC discrimination charge in September 2007 by subjecting her to worsening terms and conditions at work. In addition to the $100,000 payment, Sears has agreed to take specified actions designed to prevent future discrimination, including the posting of anti-discrimination notices to employees, dissemination of its anti-discrimination policy and providing anti-discrimination training to employees. EEOC v. Sears , Roebuck & Co. , No. 5:10-cv-01068-R (W.D. Okla. Nov. 4, 2011).
• In October 2010, defendants, a Spring, Texas, new and used car dealership and its general partner, agreed to pay $160,000 and provide neutral references indicating their eligibility for rehire to a 50-year-old White male used car salesperson (Robinson) and a 50-year-old African American male used car salesperson (Cotton). EEOC alleged that an African American male sales supervisor subjected Cotton to derogatory comments about his age and made sexual advances towards him. The supervisor also allegedly threatened Robinson, that he would "get back at" him for the "terrible things whites had done to blacks" in the past and allegedly berated him for being "too old" for the job and "washed up" in the industry. Robinson reported the misconduct to several managers, but rather than taking corrective action, the director of used cars joined in the harassing conduct. Robinson later transferred to a lower-paid sales position to avoid the sales supervisor, but the sales supervisor ultimately transferred to a position in finance where he was responsible for approving paperwork on all sales, and he refused to process any of Robinson's sales transactions, causing Robinson to resign the same month. The 2-year consent decree enjoins sex and race harassment and discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and age discrimination under the ADEA. Annually, defendants must provide copies of the decree to all supervisors and managers, and obtain signed statements that they have read the decree and agree to be bound by its terms. EEOC v. Autotainment Partners Ltd., P'ship d/b/a Planet Ford and Worldwide Autotainmentt, Inc. , No. 4:09-CV-03096 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2010) .
• In June 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a Kansas-based national employment staffing firm settled for $125,000 a case on behalf of a White, 55-year-old former employee who allegedly was treated less favorably than younger Black colleagues and fired when she complained. According to the Commission's lawsuit, the staffing company unlawfully discriminated against a senior functional analyst, who was the oldest employee and only Caucasian in the department, because of her race and age in violation of Title VII and the ADEA when a young, African American supervisor subjected her to different treatment and terminated her when she complained. EEOC v. Spencer Reed Group , No. 1:09-CV-2228 (N.D. Ga. consent decree approved 6/8/10).
• In August 2006, a Pennsylvania health care company agreed to pay $16,000 to two older workers who allegedly were denied promotions based on their race (Black) and their ages (50 and 53), despite their extensive relevant experience of 13+ years. EEOC alleged that, instead of promoting one older Black employee, the company promoted a 28-year old Caucasian employee with seven months of experience and who did not meet the stated criteria for the position. In the two-year consent decree, the company states it will avoid engaging in racial discrimination or retaliation and must post a remedial notice and provide Title VII training to all supervisors and managers. In addition, the company must provide training in its policies on hiring, promotion, transfer, and co-employment. EEOC v. Mainline Health Care , No.05-cv-4092(CN) (E.D. Pa. settled Aug. 25, 2006) .
• In October 2007, the EEOC resolved a discrimination lawsuit alleging race and age discrimination for $48,000. The EEOC had charged that a South Carolina beauty salon violated federal law by refusing to promote a 51-year-old African American stylist. Between June and September 2006, three employees resigned from the salon manager position and in filling the salon manager position all three times, the salon selected a succession of three White employees from other salons whose ages ranged from late teens to early 20s even though the Black stylist was more than qualified to fill the position. EEOC v. Regis Corporation d/b/a SmartStyle, Civil Action No.7:06-cv-02734 (D.S.C. settled October 5, 2007).
• In June 2007, the Commission affirmed its decision that complainant, a 48-year old Black male Supervisory Deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service, was not selected for the position of Assistant Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal because of race, gender, and age discrimination when the agency's Career Board selected a 34-year old Caucasian female based on her academy achievement, work experience and interview. The Commission found that the record showed that complainant's qualifications were observably superior to those of the selectee, and concluded that the agency's stated reasons for not selecting complainant for the position in question were a pretext for discrimination. The agency was ordered to appoint complainant to the position of Assistant Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal, with back pay and benefits, and pay complainant $50,000.00 and attorney's fees. Washington v. Department of Justice , EEOC Appeal No. 0720060092 (February 8, 2007), request for reconsideration denied , EEOC Request No. 0520070324 (June 15, 2007).
• In November 2006, the EEOC affirmed an AJ's findings that a federal employee complainant was not selected for promotion to Team Leader based on race (African American), sex (female) and age (DOB 2/14/54), notwithstanding her qualifications, and that she was subjected to discriminatory harassment by the same management official. The decision awarded complainant a retroactive promotion with back pay, $150,000 in compensatory damages and attorneys fees and costs. Goodridge v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050026 (November15, 2006).
• In June 2006, a Newark port facility paid $28,500 to settle a race and age discrim­ination lawsuit brought by EEOC, which alleged that the facility's new manager mistreated and then fired a 56-year-old African American customer service representative, who was the only Black and oldest of seven employees, because of her race and age. EEOC v. Port Elizabeth Terminal & Warehouse, Civil Action 05-cv-4828 (WJM) (D.N.J. June 22, 2006).
• In December 2009, a telemarketing company agreed to pay $60,000 to a Black former employee who EEOC alleged was immediately terminated following a diabetic episode at work in violation of Title VII and the ADA. The consent decree enjoins the company from engaging in racial discrimination and requires it to post a remedial notice and arrange training in racial discrimination for its managers and supervisors. The company also must submit reports to the EEOC on its compliance with the consent decree. See EEOC v. RMG Communications, LLC , Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-0947-JDT-TAB (S.D. Ind. settled Dec. 16, 2009).
• In November 2007, the Commission upheld an Administrative Judge's finding of discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and disability (cervical strain/sprain) when complainant was not accommodated with a high back chair. The agency was ordered to provide complainant with backpay for the period she was out of work due to the failure to accommodate, and complainant was awarded $2,250 in compensatory damages. Jones v. United States Postal Service , EEOC Appeal No. 0720070069 (November 8, 2007).
• An EEOC Administrative Judge's finding that a blanket policy excluding employees with Type I and II Diabetes adversely impacted African Americans and Native Americans resulted in a settlement and change in policy.
• In June 2005, an AJ found direct evidence of retaliation and circumstantial evidence of race discrimination where the agency's managers did not act on the Black complainant's plea for mail handling assistance for many months before the complainant injured himself. The managers told him that he should have thought of this [that he might need future assistance from them] before he filed his [previous] EEO complaint. They also treated him differently than non-Black employees. The complainant suffered debilitating and career-ending shoulder, neck, arm, and back injuries and lapsed into a major depression. The AJ awarded 28 months of back pay and 24 months of from pay; lost benefits; compensatory damages of $120,000 for physical and mental pain and suffering; and approximately $40,000 in attorney's fees and costs. See USPS, EEOC Hearing No. 370-2004-00099X (June 21, 2005).
• In April 2004, a letter carrier prevailed in part on his federal sector complaint alleging employment discrimination based on race/national origin (Asian), disability (PTSD), and retaliation. The allegations included that the Postal facility forced him to remain in a plywood shack for hours each day; disabled postal workers were routinely assigned to "the Box," as it was called, while non-disabled workers were never assigned to "the Box;" employees consigned to "the Box" did not have a telephone, radio, computer, or any other equipment with which to perform any work and were not given any work assignments; and the disabled employees were required to knock on a little window in "the Box" when they needed to use to the restroom. AJ found that the Agency discriminated against this letter carrier on the basis of disability when it forced him to remain in the plywood shack, and when it denied him leave, but decided the remaining claims in the favor of the agency. The Commission affirmed the AJ's decision awarding $75,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, restoration of sick leave, payment of attorneys fees and other expenses, and the dismantling of "the Box." See USPS, EEOC Hearing No. 270-2003-090077X (April 20, 2004).
• In July 2012, hotel groups Pacific Hospitality and Seasons Hotel agreed to pay $365,000 and provide preventative measures to settle a federal harassment lawsuit by the EEOC. The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that the general manager who worked at both the Best Western Evergreen Inn (formerly La Quinta Federal Way) and Best Western Tacoma Dome persistently harassed and denigrated women, including those who were minorities and had strong religious beliefs, in violation of federal law. According to the EEOC, female employees were subjected to the constant use of racial slurs and derogatory sex-based and racial comments, yelling and physical intimidation. One employee had a stapler thrown at her head while another was told she was nothing but a "welfare mother" and should abort her pregnancy. The EEOC also alleged that the general manager also illegally fired five women after they revealed they were pregnant. Further, the EEOC alleged that the harasser belittled the various religious beliefs of employees, including calling a professed Christian "weak-minded" and allegedly telling another employee that she should have an abortion because she already had a child, and that she was her own God and could control her own destiny. EEOC v. Pacific Hospitality LLC d/b/a La Quinta Inn Federal Way , No. 3:10-CV-5175 (W.D. Wash. consent decree entered July 3, 2012).
• In May 2011, the nation's second-largest pharmacy chain, a new owner of Longs Drugs, agreed to pay $55,000 to settle an EEOC race and sex discrimination lawsuit alleging that Longs subjected an African-American female product buyer to a hostile environment after hiring her in January 2007, and firing her in May 2008 in retaliation for her complaint to company managers. The suit claimed that the buyer was given more difficult tasks and less assistance than her colleagues who were not Black and female, was unfairly disciplined for performance scores that were higher than those of her White female co-workers who did not face any disciplinary action, and that the supervisor gave her White co-workers permission for vacation days but ignored the Black buyer's earlier requests for the same days. The suit further alleged that within a few months after the Black female buyer complained to human resources department about the differential treatment, she was discharged from her position. Although all of the alleged events occurred before the chain purchased Longs, the chain has agreed to institute new anti-discrimination staff training procedures. EEOC v. Longs Drugs & CVS Caremark , Civ No. 3:10-CV-04384-RS (May 31, 2011).
• In April 2011, a federal district court in Tennessee reaffirmed a court judgment of $1,073,261 when it denied the world's leading manufacturer and marketer of major home appliances' motion to reduce the victim's front and back pay awards. In December 2009, EEOC won the $1 million judgment in a race and sex discrimination suit following a four-day trial. The evidence showed that a Black female employee reported escalating offensive verbal conduct and gestures by her White male coworker over a period of two months before he physically assaulted her at the Tennessee-based facility; four levels of Whirlpool's management were aware of the escalating harassment; Whirlpool failed to take effective steps to stop the harassment; and the employee suffered devastating permanent mental injuries that will prevent her from working again as a result of the assault and Whirlpool's failure to protect her. On January 15, 2011, the corporation asked that the damages be reduced because, inter alia, the plant where the victim had worked had closed. The court denied the request. EEOC v. Whirlpool Corp. , Civil Action No. 3:06-0593 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 1, 2011). Whirlpool appealed. On June 11, 2012, Whirlpool Corporation agreed to pay one million dollars and court costs to settle the lawsuit, drawing to a close six years of litigation.
• In March 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court against a major auto parts chain because it had permitted an African American female customer service representative (rep) to be sexually harassed by her Hispanic store manager. The manager's harassment included "humping" her from behind, grabbing her head, demanding that she perform oral sex on him, telling customers that she had AIDS "because it was proven that 83 percent of African American women had AIDS," calling her a slut, and slapping her in the face with his penis. The jury awarded $15,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages to the rep. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the jurors could have reasonably determined that the district manager and regional human resources manager failed to exercise reasonable care to correct promptly "the obscene and harassing behavior" of the store since management did not check the video cameras that were in parts of the store where the rep was assaulted, the investigation was not confidential, certain employees were never interviewed, the harassment was not reported to the corporate office, critical corroborating evidence was lost, and the rep had complained to management "immediately and repeatedly." The Court also affirmed the punitive damages award because a reasonable juror could conclude that the company had not acted in good faith to comply with Title VII when the human resources manager threatened to terminate the rep for hitting the store manager while defending herself against the sexual assault. AutoZone, Inc. v. EEOC , 2011 WL 883658 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2011).
• In March 2007, EEOC upheld an AJ's finding that complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment on the bases of her race (African American) and sex (female) when management: yelled at complainant; refused to communicate with her on work matters; failed to assist her; interfered with her work; removed her space leasing duties and responsibilities which fundamentally changed the nature of her position; and engaged in an effort to get her off the leasing team. Remedial relief included back pay, benefits including reimbursement of leave, compensatory damages and attorney's fees, posting of a notice, training, and recommended disciplinary action against the responsible management officials. Burton v. Department of the Interior , EEOC Appeal No. 0720050066 (March 6, 2007).
• In December 2004, the Commission affirmed an AJ's finding that a Black female complainant was subjected to discrimination on the basis of her race and sex with regard to the processing and approval of her application for telecommuting and her request for advanced sick leave. The Commission noted that, while complainant was asked to provide additional information concerning child care and told that she would have to submit to a home inspection, a White male employee who also had children at home was not asked to do so. The agency was ordered to pay complainant $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, expunge any derogatory materials relating to complainant's performance, and pay attorney's fees and costs. Ellis-Balone v. Department of Energy , EEOC Appeal No. 07A30125 (December 29, 2004).
• In September 2004, an AJ determined that a Black male complainant was subjected to race discrimination when he was not selected for an EEO Specialist (Mediator) position despite having performed the duties of the position in the area in which he applied. Testimony in the record showed that the approving official was biased against those of complainant's race, particularly males. In addition, it was suspected that none of the seven members of complainant's race who had been performing the Mediator duties were selected for the position, while the one individual outside of complainant's race was chosen. See McMillian v. Department of Transportation , EEOC Appeal No. 07A40088 (September 28, 2004), requests for reconsideration denied , EEOC Request No. 05A50171 (December 13, 2004), & EEOC Request No. 05A50361 (April 25, 2005).
• In March 2017, an Illinois sheet metal and HVAC company paid $325,000 to settle EEOC charges that it subjected a Black Puerto Rican worker to national origin, race and color harassment that culminated in a brutal physical assault. The harassment by White employees of King-Lar Co. directed at the employee included calling him "Mexican nigger," "wetback" and "nigger slave," the Commission alleged in a lawsuit filed in August 2015. Under a 30-month consent decree, the company must designate an EEOC-approved individual to conduct independent investigations into future complaints of workplace harassment and determine what, if any, disciplinary and corrective action needs to be taken in response to a harassment complaint. King-Lar's policies and training materials also must reference the name and contact information for the designated employee as well as an 800 number and website that employees can use to make anonymous complaints. The company also agreed to fulfill notice-posting, training, and reporting requirements. EEOC v. King-Lar Co ., No. 3:15-cv-03238 (C.D. Ill. consent decree filed 3/29/17).
• In December 2012, an agricultural farm in Norman Park, Ga., has agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of American seasonal workers - many of them African-American - who, the EEOC alleged, were subjected to discrimination based on their national origin and/or race. The EEOC's suit had charged that the company unlawfully engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against American workers by firing virtually all American workers while retaining workers from Mexico during the 2009, 2010 and 2011 growing seasons. The agency also alleged that Hamilton Growers fired at least 16 African-American workers in 2009 based on race and/or national origin as their termination was coupled with race-based comments by a management official. Additionally, the lawsuit charged that Hamilton Growers provided lesser job opportunities to American workers by assigning them to pick vegetables in fields which had already been picked by foreign workers, which resulted in Americans earning less pay than their Mexican counterparts. Pursuant to the consent decree settling the suit, the Hamilton Growers will exercise good faith in hiring and retaining qualified workers of American national origin and African-American workers for all farm work positions, including supervisory positions. Hamilton Growers will also implement non-discriminatory hiring measures, which include targeted recruitment and advertising, appointment of a compliance official, and training for positive equal employment opportunity management practices. The company has also pledged, among other things, to create a termination appeal process; extend rehire offers to aggrieved individuals from the 2009-2012 growing seasons; provide transportation for American workers which is essential to viable employment in that part of the country; and limit contact between the alleged discriminating management officials and American workers. The decree also provides for posting anti-discrimination notices, record-keeping and reporting to the EEOC. EEOC v. Hamilton Growers, Inc. d/b/a Southern Valley Fruit and Vegetable, Inc., No. 11-cv-134 (M.D. Ga. consent decree filed 12/10/12).
• In August 2011, New York University agreed to pay $210,000 in lost wages and compensatory damages to settle a racial and national origin harassment lawsuit by the EEOC, alleging that an African NYU Library employee from Ghana was subjected to racial slurs, such as "monkey" and "gorilla" and insults such as "do you want a banana," "go back to the jungle," and "go back to your cage" by his mailroom supervisor. Pursuant to a three-year consent decree, the university also will improve and implement university-wide enhanced policies and complaint procedures; designate an EEO coordinator to monitor NYU's compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws; conduct in-person, comprehensive EEO training sessions for employees, supervisors, and HR staff; and maintain records of its responses to future employee complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. EEOC v. NYU , No. 10-CV-7399 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011).
• In June 2011, a leading provider of advanced office technology and innovative document imaging products, services and software agreed to pay $125,000 and to provide substantial affirmative relief to settle a Title VII case alleging race, national origin, and retaliation claims. The EEOC had charged the company with subjecting a Black Liberian employee to harassment because of his race and national origin and two Hispanic employees, one Colombian and the other Puerto Rican, to harassment based on national origin at one of its work sites in Greensboro, N.C. The lawsuit further charged that the company suspended and then fired all three employees for complaining about the harassment. The alleged unlawful conduct included the site manager commenting to the three employees that she "hated Puerto Ricans," that "Hispanics are so stupid," that "Colombians are good for nothing except drugs," and that "damn, f-----g Africans . . .ain't worth s--t." In addition to providing monetary relief, the company agreed to conduct employee training on its anti-harassment policy and make the policy available to all employees. The company also will report all harassment complaints of race or national origin harassment to the EEOC for the next two years. EEOC v. Ricoh Americas Corporation , Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00743 (M.D.N.C. settled June 15, 2011).
• In April 2011, a provider of operational support software and back office services deployed by cable and broadband operators worldwide agreed to pay $60,000 to settle a race and national origin discrimination lawsuit. In September 2010, the EEOC had filed the lawsuit alleging that the company fired a Black Tanzanian network operations analyst because of her race and national origin. The analyst was terminated allegedly because she left work 30 minutes early to beat the traffic. However, the employer did not fire a Caucasian employee who they left two hours early on two different days because he was tired. The consent decree also includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting, and posting of anti-discrimination notices. EEOC v. Integrated Broadband Services , No. 1:10-03106 (N.D. Ga. settled Apr. 5, 2011).
• In November 2008, a popular pizzeria based in Ferndale, Mich. agreed to pay $20,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the pizzeria violated federal law when it told two qualified Black job seekers for waitress positions, one of whom is African and spoke with an accent, on two separate occasions that it had run out of applications but hired a White applicant as a waitress later the same day without requiring her to fill out an application. In the consent decree, the pizzeria agreed to provide equal employment and hiring opportunities in all positions and Title VII training for supervisors, managers, and owners. The consent decree also requires the pizzeria to keep records on information relevant to whether unlawful practices have been committed and its hiring data, and to submit reports to the EEOC on this information. EEOC v. Como's of Ferndale , Case No. 2:07-cv-14091 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2008).
• In February 2008, a restaurant agreed to pay $165,000 to resolve a Title VII lawsuit EEOC brought on behalf of a dining manager who was Arab and Moroccan because he and an Arab waiter from Tunisia allegedly had been subjected to customer harassment based on race and national origin and then the manager was fired in retaliation for opposing the harassment. According to the EEOC's investigation, when the dining manager complained, the customer turned on him, saying, "If you don't like it, why don't you go back to your country?" and "I fought two wars to get rid of people like you!" The parties entered a three-year consent decree which enjoins the restaurant from engaging in race and national origin discrimination or retaliation. The restaurant also must revise its discrimination complaint and investigation policies and disseminate them when they are approved by the EEOC as well as create a complaint procedure that is designed to encourage employees to come forward with incidents of racial discrimination. Additionally, the restaurant must train its employees in anti-discrimination laws and policies and impose appropriate disciplinary measures against supervisors who engage in discrimination. EEOC v. Albion River Inn , No. C-06-5356 SI (N.D. Cal. settled Feb. 27, 2008).
• In December 2007, a convenience store distributor paid $100,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit alleging race, color, and national origin discrimination. EEOC alleged that a Black employee from West Guinea, Africa was subjected to verbal and physical harassment and then fired when he complained. The consent decree requires the company to implement a policy prohibiting race, color, and national origin harassment. The company also must submit reports to the EEOC demonstrating its compliance with the consent decree. EEOC v. Eby-Brown, LLC , No. 1:06-CV-1083-SEB-VSS (S.D. Ind. Dec. 20, 2007).
• In November 2007, a high-end suburban Illinois retirement facility agreed to pay $125,000 to settle a discrimination lawsuit alleging that it terminated its director of nursing, because of her national origin (Filipino) and race (Asian). The federal district court approved a two-year consent decree requiring the facility to provide training regarding anti-discrimination laws to all its employees; post a notice informing its employees of the consent decree; report to the EEOC any complaints of discrimination made by its employees; and take affirmative steps to recruit Asian nurses. EEOC v. Presbyterian Homes, Case No. 07 C 5443 (N.D. Ill.  Nov. 28, 2007) .
• In March 2007, MBNA-America agreed to pay $147,000 to settle a Title VII lawsuit alleging discrimination and harassment based on race and national origin. According to the lawsuit, an Asian Indian employee was subjected to ethnic taunts, such as being called "dot-head" and "Osama Bin Laden," was physically attacked by a coworker with a learning disability who believed he was Osama's brother, and was denied training and promotional opportunities afforded to his White coworkers. EEOC v. MBNA-America (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2007).
• In December 2006, a New York apple farm agreed to pay $100,000 to Jamaican migrant workers holding H-2B worker's visas who were allegedly subjected them to different terms and conditions of employment on the basis of their race (African-Caribbean), color (Black), and national origin (Jamaican). EEOC asserted in the lawsuit that the farm harassed Jamaican migrant workers and forced them to pay rent while permitting non-Jamaicans to live in housing rent-free in violation of Title VII. EEOC v. Porpiglia Farms, Civil Action No.06-cv-1124 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006).
• In January 2006, the Commission settled for $200,000 a case against Bally North America filed on behalf of a former manager of its Honolulu store who was harassed and fired due to her Asian race and Chinese national origin. EEOC v. Bally North America, Inc., No. 05-000631 (D. Haw. Jan. 2006).
• In July 2008, a Florida laundry services company agreed to pay $80,000 and furnish other remedial relief to settle an EEOC discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC had charged that a Black Haitian laundry worker at Sodexho Laundry Services, Inc. lost her job because of her race, national origin and pregnancy. The employee had developed complications early in her pregnancy, obtained a light duty assignment, but was not permitted to continue her light duty assignment after her doctor imposed lifting restrictions even though Hispanic managers routinely assigned pregnant Hispanic women to light duty work at the same time she was being denied the same opportunity. EEOC v. Sodexho Laundry Services, Inc. (S.D. Fla. settled  July 2008).
• In October 2006, EEOC obtained a $30,600 settlement in Title VII suit, alleging that a California-based office equipment supplier had fired an accounts payable specialist because she was African-American and because she had been pregnant, when it told her that after she returned from maternity leave, her assignment was complete and there were no other positions in the accounting department, permanently placed a non-Black, non-pregnant female who she had trained to fill-in during her maternity leave in her former position, and a week later hired a non-Black male to work in another accounting position in the same department. EEOC v. Taylor Made Digital Systems, Inc. , No. C-05-3952 JCS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2006).
• In March 2013, a not-for-profit developer of real estate, offices, and facilities around Grand Central Terminal in New York City paid $135,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by EEOC. The EEOC's lawsuit asserted that a non-Rastafarian security officer threatened to shoot a group of Rastafarian officers. When the Rastafarians complained, a white security supervisor made light of the physical threat and implied the Rastafarians were at fault. One Rastafarian security officer objected to the supervisor's reaction and complained that he heard the supervisor had referred to the Rastafarians by the "N-word." The Rastafarian security officer immediately contacted EEOC about the incident. The EEOC had previously sued the developer for failing to accommodate the religious beliefs of four Rastafarian employees who needed modifications to its dress code. That lawsuit was resolved by a 2009 consent decree which prohibited Grand Central Partnership from retaliating against Rastafarian security officers for their participation in the lawsuit, but the developer's current conduct constituted a breach of the earlier consent decree. In addition to the monetary relief, the new consent decree requires the developer to conduct extensive training on investigating discrimination complaints, including methods for proper documentation and unbiased assessment of witness credibility. The decree also requires developer to regularly report to EEOC about any further complaints of religious discrimination or retaliation. EEOC v. Grand Central Partnership, Inc. , No. 1:11-cv-09682 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2013) .
• In June 2011, a district court ruled that the EEOC could proceed with its two Title VII cases alleging race, national origin, and religion discrimination by a meatpacking firm against a class of Black Somali Muslim workers at its facilities in Greeley, Colo., and Grand Island, Neb. even though the relevant union local is not a party to the suit. EEOC alleged that the company failed to accommodate the Muslim workers' religious beliefs by hindering their prayer breaks and Ramadan observances, and that supervisors and co-workers harassed the Somali workers by uttering vulgar epithets and throwing bones, meat, and blood at them. In September 2008, the company locked out, suspended, and ultimately fired Somali Muslim employees in Greeley who had walked outside the plant to break their Ramadan fasts, EEOC alleged. The company claimed the entire case should be dismissed either because EEOC failed to join the relevant local union, which the company believed was a necessary party to the litigation, EEOC failed to conciliate the discrimination charges, and the plaintiff-intervenors failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The court rejected the first two arguments, and issued a mixed ruling on whether the intervenors' claims had been exhausted. EEOC v. JBS USA LLC d/b/a JBS Swift & Co. , No. 10-cv-02103 (D. Colo. June 9, 2011).
• In January 2009, a cocktail lounge agreed to pay $41,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the lounge engaged in race and religious discrimination when it refused to promote an African American employee who wears a headscarf in observance of her Muslim faith to be a cocktail server because the owner said she was looking only for what she termed "hot, White girls." In accordance with the five-year consent decree, the company is enjoined from engaging in racial and religious discrimination or retaliation and must implement and enforce anti-discrimination policies, procedures, and training for all employees. The consent decree also requires the owner/manager to attend individual training on EEO issues and the company must report to the EEOC on its compliance with the consent decree. EEOC v. Starlight Lounge , No. 2:06-cv-03075 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2009).
• In July 2008, an Oregon video company paid $630,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit alleging that two employees, an African American who was converting to Judaism and a Hispanic with some Jewish ancestry, were forced to endure repeated racial, religious, and national origin jokes, slurs and derogatory comments made by employees and upper management since the beginning of their employment in 2005. EEOC also charged that the company then engaged in a series of acts designed to punish the victims for complaining and to ridicule those who corroborated the complaints. The parties entered a three-year consent decree on July 30, 2008, which enjoins the company from engaging in racial discrimination or retaliation and requires the company to institute an equal employment opportunity policy and distribute this new policy to its employees. The consent decree also requires four hours of Title VII training for all Video Only employees. EEOC v. Video Only , No. 3:06-cv-01362 (D. Or. July 30, 2008).
• In October 2019, the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operation found that the U.S. Bureau of Prison’s  (BOP) Devens Federal Medical Center in Ayer, MA discriminated against a Hispanic female former Health Information Technician on the basis of race and sex when a supervisor gave her an unwarranted negative reference which cost her the job. The employee was required to get a reference from her supervisor when she applied for a job to become a U.S. Public Health Service officer at the prison. The prison officer job would have meant the Hispanic employee would have had as much or greater authority as her current supervisor.  The EEOC found that the employee’s supervisor, an Asian woman, “intentionally sabotaged” complainant because she did not want a Hispanic woman “to potentially serve as her supervisor.”  The complainant also alleged that the supervisor only wanted to promote Caucasian employees.  The EEOC ordered the BOP, among other things, to consider disciplinary action against the supervisor and to pay the job seeker damages. Thomasina B. v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons , EEOC Appeal No. (Oct. 2019).
• In June 2017, the EEOC reversed the Administrative Judge's finding of no discrimination by summary judgment, which the Department of Homeland Security (Agency) adopted, regarding Complainant's claim that the Agency discriminated against her, an African American woman, when it failed to select her for a promotion. The Commission instead found that summary judgment in favor of Complainant was appropriate. The Selecting Official stated that she did not select Complainant for the position because Complainant did not demonstrate experience relevant to the job description, while the Selectee did demonstrate relevant experience and received the highest interview score. The record, however, showed that Complainant specifically listed relevant experience in all areas identified by the Selecting Official, and that the Selectee's application failed to establish relevant experience in two areas. In addition, one of the individuals on the interview panel stated that the Selectee was not completely qualified for the position. The Agency also appeared to have violated its Merit Promotion Plan by having a lower-level employee participate in the interview panel. Therefore, the Commission found that Complainant established that the Agency's stated reasons for her non-selection were a pretext for race and sex discrimination. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to offer Complainant the position or a substantially similar position, and pay her appropriate back pay, interest, and benefits. Shayna P. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec ., EEOC Appeal No. 0120141506 (June 2, 2017).
• In February 2011, a family owned restaurant agreed to pay $25,000 to settle an EEOC case alleging that it violated Title VII when it demoted and discharged an African-American employee because of his race, and then discharged a Caucasian employee because of her association with him. The EEOC complaint stated that the African-American employee was subjected to derogatory remarks, such as use of the N-word, from both the restaurant's co-owner and customers. The Caucasian employee also was called derogatory names, such as "N-lover," when she turned down customers for dates. These customers also threatened to get her fired because of her association with the African-American employee. The restaurant also allegedly failed to display information regarding federal anti-discrimination laws. The consent decree enjoins the company from engaging in racial discrimination or retaliation and requires the company to post the EEO Poster in an area visible to all employees. In addition, the company must also create and post an anti-discrimination policy in the restaurant, train its employees annually on Title VII requirements, and submit written reports regarding any future complaints alleging discrimination to the EEOC. EEOC v. Marvin's Fresh Farmhouse, Inc. , No. 1:10-cv-00818 (M.D.N.C. consent decree filed February 24, 2011).
• In May 2010, an apartment management company paid $90,000 in monetary relief and agreed to provide affirmative relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company violated Title VII by firing a White manager in retaliation for hiring a Black employee in contravention of a directive by one of the owners to maintain a "certain look" in the office, which did not include African Americans. Pursuant to the three-year consent decree, the company is enjoined from engaging in retaliation or racial discrimination and required to implement a written anti-discrimination policy. The company also must provide equal employment opportunity training for all of its employees and post a remedial notice. EEOC v. Management Solutions, Inc. , No. SA09CA0655XR (W.D. Tex. May 7, 2010).
• In June 2009, a restaurant, which was accused of creating a hostile work environment for Black, White, and female employees, settled an EEOC lawsuit for $500,000 and specific relief. According to the lawsuit, White employees were harassed because of their association with Black coworkers and family members, including being referred to as "n----r lovers" and "race traitors" by White managers. Additionally, Black workers were terminated because of their race, female workers were subjected to a sex-based hostile work environment, which included male managers making sexual advances and calling them gender-related epithets such as "b-----s.", and all complainants suffered retaliation for reporting the discrimination. EEOC v. Fire Mountain Restaurants LLC, d/b/a Ryan's Family Steakhouse , No. 5:08-cv-00160-TBR (W.D. Ky. June 15, 2009).
• In February 2009, the Sixth Circuit published a favorable decision in a Title VII associational discrimination case in which the EEOC participated as amicus curiae. According to the lawsuit, three White workers at the Whirlpool plant in LaVergne, Tennessee, witnessed numerous instances of racial hostility and slurs directed at their Black coworkers. Because they maintained friendly relationships with, and engaged in various acts of advocacy on behalf of, their Black coworkers, they became targets of various threats and harassment by other White employees who were responsible for the racial hostility directed against their Black colleagues. The hostile conduct ranged from "cold shoulder" type behavior to the use of the term "nigger lover," references to the KKK, and direct threats on their lives, as well as being told to "stay with their own kind." The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the district court's decision granting summary judgment to the defendant on the White plaintiffs' Title VII claims alleging that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment based on their association with their Black coworkers. Agreeing with the position taken by the Commission as amicus curiae, the court of appeals held that there is no prerequisite degree or type of association between two individuals of different races in order to state a claim for associational discrimination or harassment, so long as the plaintiff can show that she was discriminated against because of her association with a person of a different race. The court of appeals also held that no particular degree or type of advocacy on behalf of individuals of a different race is required to state an associational discrimination claim based on this theory, again, so long as a plaintiff can show that she was discriminated against based on her advocacy on behalf of such individuals. Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp. , No. 556 F.3d 502, 515 (6th Cir. 2009).
• In March 2008, a wholesaler book company settled an EEOC lawsuit alleging that it violated Title VII when the owner verbally harassed a White female employee after he learned she had biracial children such as stating that they were "too dark to be hers." The suit also alleged that the owner made sex and race-based insults to a class of other employees and retaliated against them when the complained or cooperated with the EEOC's investigation. The settlement included a donation of $10,000 value of books or 1000 books relevant to the EEOC's mission, which will be given to a non-profit organization with an after-school program. EEOC v. Books for Less , C.A. No. 06-4577 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2008).
• In July 2007, EEOC sued a steakhouse restaurant chain for permitting its customers to harass a White employee because of her association with persons of a different race. The case settled for $75,000 and injunctive relief which included mandatory EEO training for managers, supervisors and employees. EEOC v. Ponderosa Steakhouse, No. 1:06-cv-142-JDT-TAB (S.D. Ind. settled July 3, 2007).
• In May 2006, EEOC settled a hostile work environment case against a retail furniture store chain for $275,000. The store manager allegedly made racially and sexually offensive remarks to a Black employee, referred to the African Americans as "you people" and interracial couples as "Oreos" or "Zebras," and disparaged the employee for marrying a Caucasian man. EEOC v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp. , No. 8:04-cv-T24-TBM (M.D. Fla. May 16, 2006).
• In April 2006, the Commission resolved a race discrimination lawsuit challenging the termination of a White female employee who worked without incident for a hotel and conference center until management saw her biracial children. EEOC v. Jax Inn's/Spindrifter Hotel , No. 3:04-cv-978-J-16-MMH (M.D. Fla. April 2006). [2]
• In January 2004, the Commission affirmed an AJ's finding that complainant was subjected to associational race discrimination (African-American who associates with White employees). The record showed that complainant had a close working relationship with White managers, which the selecting official held against her because of her race. The record evidence showed that the selecting official's actions in not choosing complainant for the position were intended to show the White managers that they were not running the region, and that he had a philosophy of rewarding African-American employees who aligned themselves with him instead of those, like complainant, who aligned themselves with White managers. Wiggins v. Social Security Administration , EEOC Appeal No. 07A30048 (January 22, 2004).
• In April 2007, a Virginia steel contractor settled for $27,500 a Title VII lawsuit, charging that it subjected a biracial (Black/White) employee to harassment based on race and color and then retaliated against him when he complained. EEOC v. Bolling Steel Co. , Civ. Action No. 7:06-000586 (W.D. Va. April 25, 2007).
• In March 2004, the EEOC settled a hostile work environment case in which a Caucasian-looking employee, who had a White mother and Black father, was repeatedly subjected to racially offensive comments about Black people after a White coworker learned she was biracial. When the employee complained, she was told to "pray about it" or "leave" by the owner; the employee resigned. The company agreed to pay $45,000 to the biracial employee, to create a policy on racial harassment, and to train the owner, managers and employees about how to prevent and address race discrimination in the workplace. EEOC v. Jefferson Pain & Rehabilitation Center, No. 03-cv-1329 (W.D. Pa. settled March 10, 2004).
• In January 2017, Gonnella Baking Co. of Chicago, an established bread and rolls manufacturer, agreed to pay $30,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging racial harassment at the company's Aurora, Ill., facility. According to the EEOC's complaint, Gonnella violated federal law by allegedly failing to respond adequately to a Black employee's complaints that he endured a pervasive pattern of disparaging racial comments made by his co-workers. Examples of the harassing conduct included persistent coded references to black employees as "you people," as well as offensive statements such as, "Black people are lazy," and "I better watch my wallet around you." As part of the consent decree, Gonnella must also provide training to its employees on civility in the workplace and must institute a policy holding managers and supervisors responsible for preventing and stopping harassment in the workplace. < em>EEOC v. Gonnella Baking Co. , Civil Action No. 15-cv-4892 (N.D. Ill. consent decree filed Jan. 10, 2017).
• In July 2010, Area Temps, Inc., a northeast Ohio temporary labor agency, agreed to pay $650,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a systematic practice of considering and assigning (or rejecting) job applicants by race, sex, Hispanic national origin and age. The EEOC said that Area Temps used code words to describe its clients and applicants for discriminatory purposes, such as "chocolate cupcake" for young African American women, "hockey player" for young White males, "figure skater" for White females, "basketball player" for Black males, and "small hands" for women in general. EEOC v. Area Temps , No. 1:07-cv-02964 (N.D. Ohio consent decree filed July 21, 2010).
• In April 2011, the EEOC affirmed an agency's final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record did not establish that discrimination occurred. Complainant had filed a formal EEO complaint alleging he was subjected to discriminatory harassment while in Iraq on the basis of his race (African-American) when, among other things, the word "DAN" was used by a coworker, which he learned meant "Dumb Ass Nigger," and management took no action. The evidence of record established, however, that the "DAN" comment was unlikely used in complainant's presence as he could not recall who said it and he conceded it was not directed at him. He also said he did not know what it meant until another employee told him and did not report the comment to management. Instead, another employee informed complainant's supervisor about the comment, and the supervisor promptly looked into the matter. When the supervisor was unable to establish who made the comment, he convened all the welders and threatened disciplinary action if the term was used again. There was no evidence that the term or any other racial epithet was used after this meeting. Battle v. McHugh , 2011 EEOPUB LEXIS 1063, EEOC Appeal No. 0120092518 (Apr. 27, 2011).
• In July 2010, one of the largest temporary placement agencies in Greater Cleveland area agreed to pay $650,000 to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The EEOC alleged that the temp agency violated federal law by matching workers with companies' requests for people of a certain race, age, gender and national origin and illegally profiling applicants according to their race and other demographic information using code words to describe its clients and applicants. The code words at issue included "chocolate cupcake" for young African American women, "hockey player" for a young White male, "figure skater" for White females, "basketball player" for Black males, and "small hands" for females in general. EEOC v. Area Temps, Inc. , No. 1:07-cv-2964 (N.D. Ohio July 21, 2010).
• In December 2009, a national restaurant chain settled a racial harassment lawsuit brought by EEOC for $1.26 million and significant remedial relief in a case alleging repeated racial harassment of 37 Black workers at the company's Beachwood, Ohio location. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Bahama Breeze managers committed numerous and persistent acts of racial harassment against Black employees, including frequently addressing Black staff with slurs such as "n….r," "Aunt Jemima," "homeboy," "stupid n….r," and "you people." Additionally, managers allegedly imitated what they perceived to be the speech and mannerisms of Black employees, and denied them breaks while allowing breaks to White employees. Despite the employees' complaints to management, the alleged race-based harassment continued. The three-year consent decree resolving the litigation contains significant injunctive relief requiring Bahama Breeze to update its EEO policies nationwide, provide anti-discrimination and diversity training to its managers and employees, and provide written reports regarding discrimination complaints. EEOC v. GMRI, Inc. d/b/a Bahama Breeze , 1:08-cv-2214 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2009).
• In September 2007, the EEOC filed a Title VII racial harassment case against a food and beverage distributor, alleging that the company subjected a Black employee to a racially hostile work environment when a co-worker repeatedly called him "Cornelius" in reference to an ape character from the movie, "Planet of the Apes," management officials were aware of the term's racially derogatory reference to the employee and an ape character from the movie, but terminated his employment once he objected to the racial harassment. In May 2009, the district court ruled that the distributor was not liable for racial harassment or retaliation under Title VII because the employer took prompt and remedial action once it was notified of the racial slur and because it terminated the employee misconduct, not because he opposed race discrimination. EEOC v. Dairy Fresh Foods, Inc. , No. 2:07CV14085 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2009).
• In August 2007, a San Jose body shop agreed to pay $45,000 to settle a sexual and racial harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC, in which a male auto body technician of Chinese and Italian ancestry was taunted daily by his foreman with sexual comments, racial stereotypes and code words, including calling him "Bruce Lee." The company also agreed to establish an internal complaint procedure, disseminate an anti-harassment policy, and train its workforce to prevent future harassment. EEOC v. Monterey Collision Frame and Auto Body, Inc. , No. 5:06-cv-06032-JF (N.D. Cal. consent decree filed August 30, 2007).
• In August 2007, the Commission settled for $44,000 a lawsuit against a California medical clinic, alleging that a White supervisor used racial code words, such as "reggin" ("nigger" spelled backwards), to debase and intimidate an African American file clerk and then fired her after she complained. The clinic also agreed to incorporate a zero-tolerance policy concerning discriminatory harassment and retaliation into its internal EEO and anti-harassment policies. EEOC v. Robert G. Aptekar, M.D., d/b/a Arthritis & Orthopedic Medical Clinic , Civ. No. C06-4808 MHP (N.D. Cal. consent decree filed Aug. 20, 2007).
• In March 2006, the Commission obtained $562,470 in a Title VII lawsuit against the eighth largest automobile retailer in the U.S. EEOC alleged that shortly after a new White employee was transferred to serve as the new General Manager (GM), he engaged in disparate treatment of the Black employee and made racial remarks to him, such as using "BP time" (Black people time) and remarking that he'd fired "a bunch of you people already." The new GM also berated the personnel coordinator for assisting the Black employee with his complaint and intensified his harassment of him until the employee resigned. The 4-year consent decree prohibits defendants from engaging in future discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. EEOC v. Lithia Motors, Inc., d/b/a Lithia Dodge of Cherry Creek, No. 1:05-cv-01901 (D. Colo. March 8, 2006).

[1] For another human trafficking case, see EEOC v. Trans Bay Steel, Inc. , No. 06-07766 (C.D. Cal. complaint filed 2006) (nearly $1 million settlement of national origin discrimination case in which 48 Thai welders paid exorbitant recruitment fees to an agency that kept them in involuntary servitude, and had their passports confiscated by employers that forced them to work without pay and threatened them with arrest if they tried to escape their slave-like, squalid conditions).

[2] As the Sixth Circuit explained: "A White employee who is discharged because his child is biracial is discriminated against on the basis of his race, even though the root animus for the discrimination is a prejudice against the biracial child" because "the essence of the alleged discrimination . . . is the contrast in races." Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, & GMC Trucks, Inc ., 173 F.3d 988, 994-95 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding employee stated a claim under Title VII when he alleged that company owner discriminated against him after his biracial child visited him at work).

Accessibility tools

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility

You are here:

• Case studies

Main site sub navigation

In this section:

• The top level navigation links
• Legislation
• Leading Authorities
• Judicial review decisions
• Case notes - discrimination
• Case notes - human rights
• Reports on unresolved human rights complaints
• Tribunal exemptions
• Intervention guidelines
• Interventions
• Call for case studies
• Submissions
• Health equity
• Age case studies
• Breastfeeding case studies
• Family responsibilities case studies
• Gender identity case studies
• Impairment case studies
• Parental status case studies
• Political belief or activity case studies
• Pregnancy case studies

Race case studies

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander case studies
• Relationship status case studies
• Religious belief or religious activity case studies
• Sex discrimination case studies
• Sex work activity case studies
• Sexuality case studies
• Trade union activity case studies
• Association case studies
• Sexual harassment case studies
• Unlawful requests for information case studies
• Victimisation case studies
• Vilification case studies
• Human rights case studies
• Guides and toolkits
• Fact sheets
• Human Rights Month 2019 Speaker Series: Right to education
• Human Rights Month 2019 Speaker Series: Understanding the impact of Queensland's Human Rights Act
• Working it Through
• A Human Rights Act for Queensland
• 2023 theme: Universal means everyone
• Events and training
• Human Rights Week in your workplace
• Posters and supporter resources
• Why the hummingbird?
• Queensland human rights timeline

The race case summaries are grouped into two categories: court and tribunal decisions, and conciliated outcomes.

• Race discrimination: summaries of court and tribunal decisions
• Race discrimination: summaries of conciliated outcomes

Court and tribunal decisions are made after all the evidence is heard, including details of loss and damage. The full text of court and tribunal decisions is available from:

• AustLII website
• Queensland Supreme Court Library website

Conciliated outcomes are where the parties have reached an agreement through conciliation at the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

Court and tribunal decisions

Respecting cultural practices.

Back to top

Language ability a characteristic of race

Comments to be taken in context

Derogatory racial descriptions of workers

Conciliated outcomes

Demeaning racial comments ignored.

Racist comments and sexual harassment leads to resignation

Different pay rate based on race

Entertainment venue excluded Asian customers

Worker called offensive racist names

Racial abuse and threats at work

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

• 06 Aug 2024

What the World Could Learn from America's Immigration Backlash—100 Years Ago

Immigration concerns are shaping elections around the world, but these fears have been around for centuries. Mining data from US history, Marco Tabellini explores how immigration has actually changed communities, and offers advice for policymakers trying to move forward.

• 30 Jul 2024
• Research & Ideas

Do Social Movements Sway Voters? Not Really, Except for One

People often take to the streets to express their outrage, but research by Vincent Pons finds that only one recent social movement has shifted public opinion: Black Lives Matter. In an election year marked by widespread protests, Pons explores why marches and rallies often fail to achieve long-term results.

• 11 Jun 2024
• In Practice

The Harvard Business School Faculty Summer Reader 2024

What's on your vacation reading list? Harvard Business School faculty members plan to explore not only sober themes, such as philosophy and climate policy, but classic mysteries and hip-hop history.

• 30 May 2024

Racial Bias Might Be Infecting Patient Portals. Can AI Help?

Doctors and patients turned to virtual communication when the pandemic made in-person appointments risky. But research by Ariel Stern and Mitchell Tang finds that providers' responses can vary depending on a patient's race. Could technology bring more equity to portals?

• 26 Apr 2024

Deion Sanders' Prime Lessons for Leading a Team to Victory

The former star athlete known for flash uses unglamorous command-and-control methods to get results as a college football coach. Business leaders can learn 10 key lessons from the way 'Coach Prime' builds a culture of respect and discipline without micromanaging, says Hise Gibson.

• 04 Mar 2024

Want to Make Diversity Stick? Break the Cycle of Sameness

Whether on judicial benches or in corporate boardrooms, white men are more likely to step into roles that other white men vacate, says research by Edward Chang. But when people from historically marginalized groups land those positions, workforce diversification tends to last. Chang offers three pieces of advice for leaders striving for diversity.

• 02 Jan 2024
• Cold Call Podcast

Should Businesses Take a Stand on Societal Issues?

Should businesses take a stand for or against particular societal issues? And how should leaders determine when and how to engage on these sensitive matters? Harvard Business School Senior Lecturer Hubert Joly, who led the electronics retailer Best Buy for almost a decade, discusses examples of corporate leaders who had to determine whether and how to engage with humanitarian crises, geopolitical conflict, racial justice, climate change, and more in the case, “Deciding When to Engage on Societal Issues.”

• 21 Nov 2023

Cold Call: Building a More Equitable Culture at Delta Air Lines

In December 2020 Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian and his leadership team were reviewing the decision to join the OneTen coalition, where he and 36 other CEOs committed to recruiting, hiring, training, and advancing one million Black Americans over the next ten years into family-sustaining jobs. But, how do you ensure everyone has equal access to opportunity within an organization? Professor Linda Hill discusses Delta’s decision and its progress in embedding a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion in her case, “OneTen at Delta Air Lines: Catalyzing Family-Sustaining Careers for Black Talent.”

• 31 Oct 2023

Beyond the 'Business Case' in DEI: 6 Steps Toward Meaningful Change

Diversity and inclusion efforts that focus on business outcomes alone rarely address root causes. Jamillah Bowman Williams, a visiting fellow at the Institute for the Study of Business in Global Society, offers tips for companies navigating their next stage of the DEI journey.

• 24 Oct 2023

When Tech Platforms Identify Black-Owned Businesses, White Customers Buy

Demand for Black-owned restaurants rises when they're easier to find on Yelp. Research by Michael Luca shows how companies can mobilize their own technology to advance racial equity.

• 16 Oct 2023

Advancing Black Talent: From the Flight Ramp to 'Family-Sustaining' Careers at Delta

By emphasizing skills and expanding professional development opportunities, the airline is making strides toward recruiting and advancing Black employees. Case studies by Linda Hill offer an inside look at how Delta CEO Ed Bastian is creating a more equitable company and a stronger talent pipeline.

• 10 Oct 2023

In Empowering Black Voters, Did a Landmark Law Stir White Angst?

The Voting Rights Act dramatically increased Black participation in US elections—until worried white Americans mobilized in response. Research by Marco Tabellini illustrates the power of a political backlash.

• 26 Sep 2023

Unpacking That Icky Feeling of 'Shopping' for Diverse Job Candidates

Many companies want to bring a wider variety of lived experiences to their workforces. However, research by Summer Jackson shows how hiring managers' fears of seeming transactional can ultimately undermine their diversity goals.

• 08 Aug 2023

Black Employees Not Only Earn Less, But Deal with Bad Bosses and Poor Conditions

More than 900,000 reviews highlight broad racial disparities in the American working experience. Beyond pay inequities, research by Letian Zhang shows how Black employees are less likely to work at companies known for positive cultures or work-life balance.

• 18 Jul 2023

Diversity and Inclusion at Mars Petcare: Translating Awareness into Action

In 2020, the Mars Petcare leadership team found themselves facing critically important inclusion and diversity issues. Unprecedented protests for racial justice in the U.S. and across the globe generated demand for substantive change, and Mars Petcare's 100,000 employees across six continents were ready for visible signs of progress. How should Mars’ leadership build on their existing diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and effectively capitalize on the new energy for change? Harvard Business School associate professor Katherine Coffman is joined by Erica Coletta, Mars Petcare’s chief people officer, and Ibtehal Fathy, global inclusion and diversity officer at Mars Inc., to discuss the case, “Inclusion and Diversity at Mars Petcare.”

• 01 Jun 2023

A Nike Executive Hid His Criminal Past to Turn His Life Around. What If He Didn't Have To?

Larry Miller committed murder as a teenager, but earned a college degree while serving time and set out to start a new life. Still, he had to conceal his record to get a job that would ultimately take him to the heights of sports marketing. A case study by Francesca Gino, Hise Gibson, and Frances Frei shows the barriers that formerly incarcerated Black men are up against and the potential talent they could bring to business.

• 31 May 2023

Why Business Leaders Need to Hear Larry Miller's Story

VIDEO: Nike executive Larry Miller concealed his criminal past to get a job. What if more companies were willing to hire people with blemishes on their records? Hise Gibson explores why business leaders should give the formerly incarcerated a second chance.

From Prison Cell to Nike’s C-Suite: The Journey of Larry Miller

VIDEO: Before leading one of the world’s largest brands, Nike executive Larry Miller served time in prison for murder. In this interview, Miller shares how education helped him escape a life of crime and why employers should give the formerly incarcerated a second chance. Inspired by a Harvard Business School case study.

• 08 May 2023

How Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Crushed Crowdfunding for Minority Entrepreneurs

When public anxiety about immigration surges, Black, Asian, and Hispanic inventors have a harder time raising funds for new ideas on Kickstarter, says research by William Kerr. What can platforms do to confront bias in entrepreneurial finance?

• 03 May 2023

Why Confronting Racism in AI 'Creates a Better Future for All of Us'

Rather than build on biased data and technology from the past, artificial intelligence has an opportunity to do better, says Business in Global Society Fellow Broderick Turner. He highlights three myths that prevent business leaders from breaking down racial inequality.

More From Forbes

$70 million verdict against texas company in employment discrimination case.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Gavel for judge, law and order

Last month, a jury in Texas delivered a stunning $70 million verdict in favor of 10 employees who worked for Glow Networks. Nine of the ten plaintiffs were Black employees. The case, Yarbrough, et al. v. Glow Networks, Inc., is a potent reminder about the continuing effects of employment discrimination as well as the legal remedies that exist to combat unequal treatment and retaliation at work.

The plaintiffs are represented by The Sanford Firm.

The defendants are represented by Ford & Harrison.

Background Of The Case

The employees filed their lawsuit against Glow Networks in a Texas federal court in December 2019 (Civil No. 4:19-cv-00905, E.D. Tex. 2019). According to their complaint, numerous Black employees faced continuing race discrimination at work, including promotion denials, unequal pay, and a hostile work environment.

At trial, the employees sought only compensatory/emotional distress damages and punitive damages in the lawsuit and did not seek lost pay damages. For this reason, their decision to proceed solely under 42 U.S.C. 1981 (Section 1981) rather than including a claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VII) was particularly important and will be discussed in more detail below.

Ultimately, the jury determined that the employees had proved that Glow Networks had subjected them to unlawful discrimination and retaliation at work. This discrimination and retaliation included demotions, promotion denials, and getting fired or laid off.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

DAMAGES word on the card

Notably, the jury then awarded each plaintiff $3 million in emotional distress damages and $4 million in punitive damages, which are designed to punish employers in particularly egregious cases of employment discrimination. The total award to the 10 employees thus equaled $70 million (this amount does not include any attorneys’ fees and trial expenses that the court may later order the company to pay).

Glow Networks will have an opportunity to appeal the jury verdict if it chooses to do so.

Differences Between Section 1981 And Title VII Race Discrimination Claims

On a broader level, both Section 1981 and Title VII outlaw employment discrimination based on race. In the Yarbrough case, the employees filed their case under Section 1981 instead of Title VII. This choice paid off handsomely as a key difference between these two employment discrimination laws is that Title VII caps the maximum amount that a plaintiff can receive for compensatory and punitive damages at $300,000. Title VII’s cap would thus result in a maximum jury verdict of $3,000,000 for these 10 plaintiffs. Section 1981, however, has no cap on compensatory and punitive damages, which resulted in a $70 million verdict, an eye-popping $67 million more than could have been awarded under Title VII.

Other distinctions between Title VII and Section 1981 exist, including:

Title VII outlaws disparate impact discrimination but Section 1981 does not

Both statutes prohibit intentional discrimination in employment based on race. But Title VII also prohibits using hiring practices that are neutral on their face (such as written tests), which have a discriminatory outcome: disproportionately excluding female, African-American, and other protected classes of applicants.

Under the disparate impact theory, even if the employer did not intend for an employment practice to exclude protected groups, if the practice ultimately has the effect of rejecting an excessive number of otherwise qualified, for example, female or African-American applicants, then using the practice might violate Title VII.

Section 1981, on the other hand, outlaws only intentional discrimination.

Section 1981 does not require the employee to file an EEOC charge

To file a Title VII lawsuit in court, an employee must fist have exhausted their administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Depending on which state the employee works in, the time period can be either 180 or 300 days to file the charge if the employee works in the private sector. Different procedures and time periods apply if the employee works for the federal, state, or local government.

Section 1981, however, does not require an employee to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. This distinction is particularly important if the employee has missed the deadline to file an EEOC charge of discrimination because the employee may still be able to assert a claim under Section 1981.

Section 1981 has a longer statute of limitations than Title VII

close up of calendar and alarm clock

As noted above, the deadline for filing an EEOC charge of discrimination can be up to 300 days, depending on where you work and whether you are in the public or private sector. Also, a Title VII lawsuit must generally be filed within 90 days after the EEOC’s Right to Sue Notice is received.

Claims asserted under Section 1981 though have a significantly longer statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit. Indeed, an employee may file a Section 1981 within four years of the violation. Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co ., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

Section 1981 applies only to race discrimination while Title VII covers more classes of people

Section 1981 provides several additional benefits not contained in Title VII, but in at least one area–scope of protected classes–Title VII offers broader coverage.

Section 1981 covers discrimination based only on race or ethnicity.

Title VII covers discrimination based not only on an employee’s race and ethnicity, but also protects against discrimination related to, for example, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The Yarbrough jury verdict highlights the work that remains to be done to eradicate employment discrimination, but also the promise that laws like Section 1981 and Title VII can provide a powerful weapon to improve workplaces for everyone. As one of the lawyers for the employees, Brian Sanford, told BET about the jury verdict, “[t]hey were sending the message,” he said. “Don’t do this in the 21st century. Stop.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Tesla must pay $137 million to a Black employee who sued for racial discrimination

Joe Hernandez

A former contract elevator operator at a Tesla factory said that instead of a "modern workplace," he found a "scene straight from the Jim Crow era." Justin Sullivan/Getty Images hide caption

A former contract elevator operator at a Tesla factory said that instead of a "modern workplace," he found a "scene straight from the Jim Crow era."

A federal jury in San Francisco has ordered Tesla to pay a former Black contractor $137 million over claims that he was subjected to racial discrimination at work.

Owen Diaz, who worked as a contract elevator operator at Tesla's factory in Fremont, Calif., from 2015 to 2016, said in his lawsuit that he and others were called the N-word by Tesla employees, that he was told to "go back to Africa" and that employees drew racist and derogatory pictures that were left around the factory.

The suit said Diaz was excited to go to work for Tesla, but that instead of a "modern workplace," he found a "scene straight from the Jim Crow era."

Diaz says nothing was done to stop it

Diaz said that he complained about the discriminatory treatment to Tesla and the contracting companies Citistaff and nextSource, but that nothing was ever done to stop it.

"I'm gratified that the jury saw the truth and that they sent a message to Tesla to clean up its workplace," Larry Organ, one of Diaz's attorneys, told NPR.

The jury award included $130 million in punitive damages and $6.9 million in emotional damages, according to the verdict. Organ said he believed it was the largest award in a racial harassment case involving a single plaintiff in U.S. history.

"Owen and I both hope that this sends a message to corporate America to look at your workplace and, if there are problems there, take proactive measures to protect employees against racist conduct," Organ added. "It is happening, and we need to do something about it."

Tesla says its workplace culture has "come a long way"

Valerie Capers Workman, Tesla's vice president of people, said in a statement on the automaker's website that witnesses at trial corroborated the fact that people used the N-word on the factory floor, but that those witnesses also said the word was often used in a "friendly" manner. Workman said that Tesla followed up on Diaz's complaints, and that the staffing agencies fired two contractors and suspended another.

"While we strongly believe that these facts don't justify the verdict reached by the jury in San Francisco, we do recognize that in 2015 and 2016, we were not perfect. We're still not perfect. But we have come a long way from 5 years ago," Workman said.

"The Tesla of 2015 and 2016 (when Mr. Diaz worked in the Fremont factory) is not the same as the Tesla of today," she added.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Who Discriminates in Hiring? A New Study Can Tell.

Applications seemingly from Black candidates got fewer replies than those evidently from white candidates. The method could point to specific companies.

By Eduardo Porter

Twenty years ago, Kalisha White performed an experiment. A Marquette University graduate who is Black, she suspected that her application for a job as executive team leader at a Target in Wisconsin was being ignored because of her race. So she sent in another one, with a name (Sarah Brucker) more likely to make the candidate appear white.

Though the fake résumé was not quite as accomplished as Ms. White’s, the alter ego scored an interview. Target ultimately paid over half a million dollars to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Ms. White and a handful of other Black job applicants.

Now a variation on her strategy could help expose racial discrimination in employment across the corporate landscape.

Economists at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago this week unveiled a vast discrimination audit of some of the largest U.S. companies. Starting in late 2019, they sent 83,000 fake job applications for entry-level positions at 108 companies — most of them in the top 100 of the Fortune 500 list, and some of their subsidiaries.

Their insights can provide valuable evidence about violations of Black workers’ civil rights.

The researchers — Patrick Kline and Christopher Walters of Berkeley and Evan K. Rose of Chicago — are not ready to reveal the names of companies on their list. But they plan to, once they expose the data to more statistical tests. Labor lawyers, the E.E.O.C. and maybe the companies themselves could do a lot with this information. (Dr. Kline said they had briefed the U.S. Labor Department on the general findings.)

In the study, applicants’ characteristics — like age, sexual orientation, or work and school experience — varied at random. Names, however, were chosen purposefully to ensure applications came in pairs: one with a more distinctive white name — Jake or Molly, say — and the other with a similar background but a more distinctive Black name, like DeShawn or Imani.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

A pandemic that disproportionately affected communities of color, roadblocks that obstructed efforts to expand the franchise and protect voting discrimination, a growing movement to push anti-racist curricula out of schools – events over the past year have only underscored how prevalent systemic racism and bias is in America today.

What can be done to dismantle centuries of discrimination in the U.S.? How can a more equitable society be achieved? What makes racism such a complicated problem to solve? Black History Month is a time marked for honoring and reflecting on the experience of Black Americans, and it is also an opportunity to reexamine our nation’s deeply embedded racial problems and the possible solutions that could help build a more equitable society.

Stanford scholars are tackling these issues head-on in their research from the perspectives of history, education, law and other disciplines. For example, historian Clayborne Carson is working to preserve and promote the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and religious studies scholar Lerone A. Martin has joined Stanford to continue expanding access and opportunities to learn from King’s teachings; sociologist Matthew Clair is examining how the criminal justice system can end a vicious cycle involving the disparate treatment of Black men; and education scholar Subini Ancy Annamma is studying ways to make education more equitable for historically marginalized students.

Learn more about these efforts and other projects examining racism and discrimination in areas like health and medicine, technology and the workplace below.

Update: Jan. 27, 2023: This story was originally published on Feb. 16, 2021, and has been updated on a number of occasions to include new content.

Understanding the impact of racism; advancing justice

One of the hardest elements of advancing racial justice is helping everyone understand the ways in which they are involved in a system or structure that perpetuates racism, according to Stanford legal scholar Ralph Richard Banks.

“The starting point for the center is the recognition that racial inequality and division have long been the fault line of American society. Thus, addressing racial inequity is essential to sustaining our nation, and furthering its democratic aspirations,” said Banks , the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and co-founder of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice .

This sentiment was echoed by Stanford researcher Rebecca Hetey . One of the obstacles in solving inequality is people’s attitudes towards it, Hetey said. “One of the barriers of reducing inequality is how some people justify and rationalize it.”

How people talk about race and stereotypes matters. Here is some of that scholarship.

For Black Americans, COVID-19 is quickly reversing crucial economic gains

Research co-authored by SIEPR’s Peter Klenow and Chad Jones measures the welfare gap between Black and white Americans and provides a way to analyze policies to narrow the divide.

How an ‘impact mindset’ unites activists of different races

A new study finds that people’s involvement with Black Lives Matter stems from an impulse that goes beyond identity.

For democracy to work, racial inequalities must be addressed

The Stanford Center for Racial Justice is taking a hard look at the policies perpetuating systemic racism in America today and asking how we can imagine a more equitable society.

The psychological toll of George Floyd’s murder

As the nation mourned the death of George Floyd, more Black Americans than white Americans felt angry or sad – a finding that reveals the racial disparities of grief.

Seven factors contributing to American racism

Of the seven factors the researchers identified, perhaps the most insidious is passivism or passive racism, which includes an apathy toward systems of racial advantage or denial that those systems even exist.

Scholars reflect on Black history

Humanities and social sciences scholars reflect on “Black history as American history” and its impact on their personal and professional lives.

The history of Black History Month

It's February, so many teachers and schools are taking time to celebrate Black History Month. According to Stanford historian Michael Hines, there are still misunderstandings and misconceptions about the past, present, and future of the celebration.

Numbers about inequality don’t speak for themselves

In a new research paper, Stanford scholars Rebecca Hetey and Jennifer Eberhardt propose new ways to talk about racial disparities that exist across society, from education to health care and criminal justice systems.

Changing how people perceive problems

Drawing on an extensive body of research, Stanford psychologist Gregory Walton lays out a roadmap to positively influence the way people think about themselves and the world around them. These changes could improve society, too.

Welfare opposition linked to threats of racial standing

Research co-authored by sociologist Robb Willer finds that when white Americans perceive threats to their status as the dominant demographic group, their resentment of minorities increases. This resentment leads to opposing welfare programs they believe will mainly benefit minority groups.

Conversations about race between Black and white friends can feel risky, but are valuable

New research about how friends approach talking about their race-related experiences with each other reveals concerns but also the potential that these conversations have to strengthen relationships and further intergroup learning.

Defusing racial bias

Research shows why understanding the source of discrimination matters.

Many white parents aren’t having ‘the talk’ about race with their kids

After George Floyd’s murder, Black parents talked about race and racism with their kids more. White parents did not and were more likely to give their kids colorblind messages.

Stereotyping makes people more likely to act badly

Even slight cues, like reading a negative stereotype about your race or gender, can have an impact.

Why white people downplay their individual racial privileges

Research shows that white Americans, when faced with evidence of racial privilege, deny that they have benefited personally.

Clayborne Carson: Looking back at a legacy

Stanford historian Clayborne Carson reflects on a career dedicated to studying and preserving the legacy of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

How race influences, amplifies backlash against outspoken women

When women break gender norms, the most negative reactions may come from people of the same race.

Examining disparities in education

Scholar Subini Ancy Annamma is studying ways to make education more equitable for historically marginalized students. Annamma’s research examines how schools contribute to the criminalization of Black youths by creating a culture of punishment that penalizes Black children more harshly than their white peers for the same behavior. Her work shows that youth of color are more likely to be closely watched, over-represented in special education, and reported to and arrested by police.

“These are all ways in which schools criminalize Black youth,” she said. “Day after day, these things start to sediment.”

That’s why Annamma has identified opportunities for teachers and administrators to intervene in these unfair practices. Below is some of that research, from Annamma and others.

New ‘Segregation Index’ shows American schools remain highly segregated by race, ethnicity, and economic status

Researchers at Stanford and USC developed a new tool to track neighborhood and school segregation in the U.S.

New evidence shows that school poverty shapes racial achievement gaps

Racial segregation leads to growing achievement gaps – but it does so entirely through differences in school poverty, according to new research from education Professor Sean Reardon, who is launching a new tool to help educators, parents and policymakers examine education trends by race and poverty level nationwide.

School closures intensify gentrification in Black neighborhoods nationwide

An analysis of census and school closure data finds that shuttering schools increases gentrification – but only in predominantly Black communities.

Ninth-grade ethnic studies helped students for years, Stanford researchers find

A new study shows that students assigned to an ethnic studies course had longer-term improvements in attendance and graduation rates.

Teaching about racism

Stanford sociologist Matthew Snipp discusses ways to educate students about race and ethnic relations in America.

Stanford scholar uncovers an early activist’s fight to get Black history into schools

In a new book, Assistant Professor Michael Hines chronicles the efforts of a Chicago schoolteacher in the 1930s who wanted to remedy the portrayal of Black history in textbooks of the time.

How disability intersects with race

Professor Alfredo J. Artiles discusses the complexities in creating inclusive policies for students with disabilities.

Access to program for black male students lowered dropout rates

New research led by Stanford education professor Thomas S. Dee provides the first evidence of effectiveness for a district-wide initiative targeted at black male high school students.

How school systems make criminals of Black youth

Stanford education professor Subini Ancy Annamma talks about the role schools play in creating a culture of punishment against Black students.

Reducing racial disparities in school discipline

Stanford psychologists find that brief exercises early in middle school can improve students’ relationships with their teachers, increase their sense of belonging and reduce teachers’ reports of discipline issues among black and Latino boys.

Science lessons through a different lens

In his new book, Science in the City, Stanford education professor Bryan A. Brown helps bridge the gap between students’ culture and the science classroom.

Teachers more likely to label black students as troublemakers, Stanford research shows

Stanford psychologists Jennifer Eberhardt and Jason Okonofua experimentally examined the psychological processes involved when teachers discipline black students more harshly than white students.

Why we need Black teachers

Travis Bristol, MA '04, talks about what it takes for schools to hire and retain teachers of color.

Understanding racism in the criminal justice system

Research has shown that time and time again, inequality is embedded into all facets of the criminal justice system. From being arrested to being charged, convicted and sentenced, people of color – particularly Black men – are disproportionately targeted by the police.

“So many reforms are needed: police accountability, judicial intervention, reducing prosecutorial power and increasing resources for public defenders are places we can start,” said sociologist Matthew Clair . “But beyond piecemeal reforms, we need to continue having critical conversations about transformation and the role of the courts in bringing about the abolition of police and prisons.”

Clair is one of several Stanford scholars who have examined the intersection of race and the criminal process and offered solutions to end the vicious cycle of racism. Here is some of that work.

Police Facebook posts disproportionately highlight crimes involving Black suspects, study finds

Researchers examined crime-related posts from 14,000 Facebook pages maintained by U.S. law enforcement agencies and found that Facebook users are exposed to posts that overrepresent Black suspects by 25% relative to local arrest rates.

Supporting students involved in the justice system

New data show that a one-page letter asking a teacher to support a youth as they navigate the difficult transition from juvenile detention back to school can reduce the likelihood that the student re-offends.

Race and mass criminalization in the U.S.

Stanford sociologist discusses how race and class inequalities are embedded in the American criminal legal system.

New Stanford research lab explores incarcerated students’ educational paths

Associate Professor Subini Annamma examines the policies and practices that push marginalized students out of school and into prisons.

Derek Chauvin verdict important, but much remains to be done

Stanford scholars Hakeem Jefferson, Robert Weisberg and Matthew Clair weigh in on the Derek Chauvin verdict, emphasizing that while the outcome is important, much work remains to be done to bring about long-lasting justice.

A ‘veil of darkness’ reduces racial bias in traffic stops

After analyzing 95 million traffic stop records, filed by officers with 21 state patrol agencies and 35 municipal police forces from 2011 to 2018, researchers concluded that “police stops and search decisions suffer from persistent racial bias.”

Stanford big data study finds racial disparities in Oakland, Calif., police behavior, offers solutions

Analyzing thousands of data points, the researchers found racial disparities in how Oakland officers treated African Americans on routine traffic and pedestrian stops. They suggest 50 measures to improve police-community relations.

Race and the death penalty

As questions about racial bias in the criminal justice system dominate the headlines, research by Stanford law Professor John J. Donohue III offers insight into one of the most fraught areas: the death penalty.

Diagnosing disparities in health, medicine

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted communities of color and has highlighted the health disparities between Black Americans, whites and other demographic groups.

As Iris Gibbs , professor of radiation oncology and associate dean of MD program admissions, pointed out at an event sponsored by Stanford Medicine: “We need more sustained attention and real action towards eliminating health inequities, educating our entire community and going beyond ‘allyship,’ because that one fizzles out. We really do need people who are truly there all the way.”

Below is some of that research as well as solutions that can address some of the disparities in the American healthcare system.

Stanford researchers testing ways to improve clinical trial diversity

The American Heart Association has provided funding to two Stanford Medicine professors to develop ways to diversify enrollment in heart disease clinical trials.

Striking inequalities in maternal and infant health

Research by SIEPR’s Petra Persson and Maya Rossin-Slater finds wealthy Black mothers and infants in the U.S. fare worse than the poorest white mothers and infants.

More racial diversity among physicians would lead to better health among black men

A clinical trial in Oakland by Stanford researchers found that black men are more likely to seek out preventive care after being seen by black doctors compared to non-black doctors.

A better measuring stick: Algorithmic approach to pain diagnosis could eliminate racial bias

Traditional approaches to pain management don’t treat all patients the same. AI could level the playing field.

5 questions: Alice Popejoy on race, ethnicity and ancestry in science

Alice Popejoy, a postdoctoral scholar who studies biomedical data sciences, speaks to the role – and pitfalls – of race, ethnicity and ancestry in research.

Stanford Medicine community calls for action against racial injustice, inequities

The event at Stanford provided a venue for health care workers and students to express their feelings about violence against African Americans and to voice their demands for change.

Racial disparity remains in heart-transplant mortality rates, Stanford study finds

African-American heart transplant patients have had persistently higher mortality rates than white patients, but exactly why still remains a mystery.

Finding the COVID-19 Victims that Big Data Misses

Widely used virus tracking data undercounts older people and people of color. Scholars propose a solution to this demographic bias.

Studying how racial stressors affect mental health

Farzana Saleem, an assistant professor at Stanford Graduate School of Education, is interested in the way Black youth and other young people of color navigate adolescence—and the racial stressors that can make the journey harder.

Infants’ race influences quality of hospital care in California

Disparities exist in how babies of different racial and ethnic origins are treated in California’s neonatal intensive care units, but this could be changed, say Stanford researchers.

Immigrants don’t move state-to-state in search of health benefits

When states expand public health insurance to include low-income, legal immigrants, it does not lead to out-of-state immigrants moving in search of benefits.

Excess mortality rates early in pandemic highest among Blacks

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been starkly uneven across race, ethnicity and geography, according to a new study led by SHP's Maria Polyakova.

Decoding bias in media, technology

Driving Artificial Intelligence are machine learning algorithms, sets of rules that tell a computer how to solve a problem, perform a task and in some cases, predict an outcome. These predictive models are based on massive datasets to recognize certain patterns, which according to communication scholar Angele Christin , sometimes come flawed with human bias . 

“Technology changes things, but perhaps not always as much as we think,” Christin said. “Social context matters a lot in shaping the actual effects of the technological tools. […] So, it’s important to understand that connection between humans and machines.”

Below is some of that research, as well as other ways discrimination unfolds across technology, in the media, and ways to counteract it.

IRS disproportionately audits Black taxpayers

A Stanford collaboration with the Department of the Treasury yields the first direct evidence of differences in audit rates by race.

Automated speech recognition less accurate for blacks

The disparity likely occurs because such technologies are based on machine learning systems that rely heavily on databases of English as spoken by white Americans.

New algorithm trains AI to avoid bad behaviors

Robots, self-driving cars and other intelligent machines could become better-behaved thanks to a new way to help machine learning designers build AI applications with safeguards against specific, undesirable outcomes such as racial and gender bias.

Stanford scholar analyzes responses to algorithms in journalism, criminal justice

In a recent study, assistant professor of communication Angèle Christin finds a gap between intended and actual uses of algorithmic tools in journalism and criminal justice fields.

Move responsibly and think about things

In the course CS 181: Computers, Ethics and Public Policy , Stanford students become computer programmers, policymakers and philosophers to examine the ethical and social impacts of technological innovation.

Homicide victims from Black and Hispanic neighborhoods devalued

Social scientists found that homicide victims killed in Chicago’s predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods received less news coverage than those killed in mostly white neighborhoods.

Algorithms reveal changes in stereotypes

New Stanford research shows that, over the past century, linguistic changes in gender and ethnic stereotypes correlated with major social movements and demographic changes in the U.S. Census data.

AI Index Diversity Report: An Unmoving Needle

Stanford HAI’s 2021 AI Index reveals stalled progress in diversifying AI and a scarcity of the data needed to fix it.

Identifying discrimination in the workplace and economy

From who moves forward in the hiring process to who receives funding from venture capitalists, research has revealed how Blacks and other minority groups are discriminated against in the workplace and economy-at-large. 

“There is not one silver bullet here that you can walk away with. Hiring and retention with respect to employee diversity are complex problems,” said Adina Sterling , associate professor of organizational behavior at the Graduate School of Business (GSB). 

Sterling has offered a few places where employers can expand employee diversity at their companies. For example, she suggests hiring managers track data about their recruitment methods and the pools that result from those efforts, as well as examining who they ultimately hire.

Here is some of that insight.

How To: Use a Scorecard to Evaluate People More Fairly

A written framework is an easy way to hold everyone to the same standard.

Archiving Black histories of Silicon Valley

A new collection at Stanford Libraries will highlight Black Americans who helped transform California’s Silicon Valley region into a hub for innovation, ideas.

Race influences professional investors’ judgments

In their evaluations of high-performing venture capital funds, professional investors rate white-led teams more favorably than they do black-led teams with identical credentials, a new Stanford study led by Jennifer L. Eberhardt finds.

Who moves forward in the hiring process?

People whose employment histories include part-time, temporary help agency or mismatched work can face challenges during the hiring process, according to new research by Stanford sociologist David Pedulla.

How emotions may result in hiring, workplace bias

Stanford study suggests that the emotions American employers are looking for in job candidates may not match up with emotions valued by jobseekers from some cultural backgrounds – potentially leading to hiring bias.

Do VCs really favor white male founders?

A field experiment used fake emails to measure gender and racial bias among startup investors.

Can you spot diversity? (Probably not)

New research shows a “spillover effect” that might be clouding your judgment.

Can job referrals improve employee diversity?

New research looks at how referrals impact promotions of minorities and women.

Studies find evidence of systemic racial discrimination across multiple domains in the United States

Harvard Pop Center faculty member Sara Bleich and her colleagues have published two studies examining experiences of racial discrimination in the United States.

One study found substantial black-white disparities in experiences of discrimination in the U.S. spanning multiple domains including health care, employment, and law enforcement, while a separate study found similar discrimination among Latinos in the United States. Given the connection between racial discrimination and poor health outcomes in both groups of Americans, the study calls for more interventions to address broad racial discrimination.

Case study: Redmans wins £30,000 for client in race discrimination Employment Tribunal claim

How Chris Hadrill successfully represented a Claimant in his claim for race discrimination in the Employment Tribunal on a ‘no win no fee’ basis and secured compensation of over £30,000 for his client.

Under the Equality Act 2010, employees can make a claim to the Employment Tribual if they believe that they have been discriminated against, harassed or victimized because of their race (or any other ‘protected characteristic’). Potential claims include the following:

• Section 13 Equality Act 2010 – to make a claim to the Employment Tribunal for direct race discrimination if they believe that they have been treated less favourably because of their race (“direct race discrimination”)
• Section 26(1) Equality Act 2010 – to make a claim to the Employment Tribunal for race-related harassment in the Employment Tribunal if they believe that they have been subjected to unwanted conduct related to their (or another person’s) race which has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile work environment or humiliating them
• Section 27 Equality Act 2010 – to make a claim to the Employment Tribunal for victimization if they believe that they have been subjected to a detriment because they have, for example, threatened to make a claim for race discrimination to the Employment Tribunal

Michael (not his real name), who is of Polish national origin, was a bouncer at a West London nightclub. During the course of his employment his Serbian colleagues started to isolate him and bully him and his line manager, who is also Serbian, started to reduce his hours from his normal forty hours a week to only 25 hours a week.

One day, Michael turned up to work and was told by his line manager that he was be summarily dismissed. No reason was given for the dismissal by his line manager but he later received an email stating that he was being dismissed for “lateness and lack of work efficiency”. Prior to his dismissal, Michael had never had any informal or formal warnings about his performance at work.

What we did

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, represented Michael on a ‘no win no fee’ basis in his Employment Tribunal claim. Chris dealt with the procedure of the claim and represented Michael at the full Employment Tribunal hearing.

With Chris handling his case, Michael won his claim and was found by the Employment Tribunal to have been unfairly dismissed and directly discriminated against because of his nationality. The Employment Tribunal awarded Michael over £30,000 in compensation for his claims.

UNESCO-IESALC

• The Institute
• Public Consultations CRES+5
• Equity and Inclusion
• Recognition of Academic Degrees
• New Regional Convention
• Practical information for recognition by country
• Quality and relevance
• Campus IESALC
• Change Management Program and Agile Methodologies
• ESD BOOTCAMP
• Leadership, Management and Training Program for Sustainable Higher Education 
• Quality Management Programme
• Strengthening Programme for Improvement Plan Projects
• Sustainable University Leadership and Governance. Towards the 2030 Agenda
• Teacher Competency Development Programme (TCDP)
• Technical Competency Development Programme
• Concerted advocacy
• Inclusion 360°: Redefining Higher Education
• Digital Transformations
• Futures of Higher Education
• Internationalization
• Response to COVID-19
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• The Right to Higher Education
• Transforming Education
• Sustainable Development
• Competence Development for Technicians
• Educational continuity in Peru (PMESUT)
• Itinerario Lab
• Pedagogical Design and Education for Sustainable Development Training Program
• Program for the Strengthening of Improvement Plan Projects
• Sustainable University Leadership and Governance Program
• Teacher competence development
• Training Program in Digital Competencies and Transformational Teaching-Learning Models
• CRES 2018 Collection
• ESS Open Journal System
• IESALC Publications

The George Floyd case and racism in higher education systems and institutions

By Daniel Mato | The murder of George Floyd, suffocated by a police officer in the United States, has made the serious problem of racism and police violence in that country visible again. But this way of looking at it is too simplistic. It is necessary not to lose sight of the fact that that policeman was a university graduate, as well as the fact that his crime, which joined many other similar ones, was only one of the ways in which racism was expressed in that society. It cannot be omitted that this racism is historically constitutive of that society, and that it is structural, it permeates all its institutions and is reproduced through them.

But isn’t racism also constitutive of all Latin American societies? Is it not also structural in Latin American societies, permeating all its institutions and reproducing itself through them? Isn’t this also expressed in violent actions, including homicides, by police and other security forces, especially against indigenous and Afro-descendant people and communities? In many of these societies, aren´t at least some of the officers of the security forces also graduates of universities or other types of higher education institutions? Haven’t they and the junior components of these forces received human rights courses? Haven’t graduates and institutions of higher education participated in the delivery of these courses?

Isn’t racism in Latin American societies also expressed in other forms of institutional violence, often less evident, such as those that are exercised in health, education and justice systems and institutions? Don’t graduates of higher education institutions participate in these?

Is racism not also expressed, in various ways, in the training provided by universities and other institutions of higher education, for example, to those who will become senior technicians and professionals in fields such as law, health, architecture, engineering, economics and the most diverse social and humanistic disciplines? Does it not also express itself in the provision to those who will serve as teachers at all educational levels, where they will continue to tell their students the respective “official history” and advocate values that – judging by the results in sight- have not led to the building of satisfactorily democratic, socially and environmentally sustainable societies?

Unfortunately, all these questions must be answered in the affirmative. However, many members of our societies live without being aware of the existence of racism. This is because racism in these societies has been “naturalized”. For example, the same mass media in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico, among others, that gave extensive coverage to the murder of George Floyd, and that did so by highlighting the racism of that society, omitted to do so, in most cases, in similar crimes committed in their respective countries, or ignored the racist nature of such crimes.

The authors of many of these press releases, the respective editors, and most of the media columnists, who analyzed this crime as if it were a problem exclusively “Made in USA”, are also university graduates, just like the cop who murdered George Floyd. There were other media that did link this racist murder with similar ones in our lands, but these were generally media with less impact on public opinion. Despite the existence of those other “points of view”, many people reproduced the interpretations of the most far-reaching media.

Why did this happen and why does it continue to happen?  Because racism is a constituent element of our societies, and in a wider sense, of the world in which we live; and because it continues to be reproduced through various institutions, practices and discourses.

Racism is an ideology according to which human beings are classified into races, where some are believed to be superior to others that are believed to be morally and intellectually inferior. This ideology served as the basis for the colonial deployment of coalitions composed by some European monarchies, their armies and civil servants, economic power groups and leaders of institutionalized religions, which subjugated not only peoples from other continents, but also Europeans. In this part of the world, significantly named Latin America (denomination that affirms its European “heritage”), the new republican states far from ending this ideology were established upon it, and they reproduced it through racist policies and practices. For example, to end “barbarism” and ensure the advancement of “civilization”, successive governments (administrations of those states) continued to advance over the territories of indigenous peoples, distributed their lands among the political and economic power groups of which they were part, and commissioned the Catholic Church to “save the souls” of the survivors of those peoples dispossessed of territories, who were also forbidden to speak their languages, practice their forms of spirituality and sustain their food and health systems.

While practices of territorial dispossession persist, states have long been using other means to continue their “civilizing” mission. For example, they employ economic and social policies aimed at ensuring “progress” and “pulling out of backwardness” the still numerous indigenous and Afro-descendant communities that, despite territorial losses, continue trying to live in harmony with what the states have called “environment” and whose “preservation” they have only begun to worry about in the 1970s, so far without results. In addition, various cultural policies have been, and continue to be, key instruments in the reproduction of this ideology and its “naturalization”, for example, through the forced Spanishization of indigenous peoples and the associated glotticides. Educational systems and institutions (including those of higher education) have also contributed to the reproduction and naturalization of racism , and continue to do so, probably in ways that are unconscious for most of their members.

The multiple forms of racism and its naturalization

Today racism is so naturalized in our societies that it is mostly unconscious, to the point that the application of this concept is usually limited to events occurring in the United States or Europe, and in our midst, to explicit actions of “racial discrimination”, and among these, often only those that are very visible, or violent.

For example, the presence of racism is often not perceived in some verbal expressions so deeply rooted in our language that they have been recorded as forms of figurative language listed in the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy. This is the case, for example, of the expression “merienda de negros” (black people’s snack) used to refer to situations of “disorder and confusion”, and of the expression “se le subió el indio” (the Indian part got hold of him/her) as the equivalent of “rose in anger”. The reference to these two terms in particular is due to the fact that their use can be observed both in Spain and in virtually all Latin American countries, and that they even appear in the aforementioned dictionary, but there are many others that are used in some countries in particular.

The naturalization of racism means that it is not generally associated with events such as the fact that in our countries indigenous and Afro-descendant individuals and communities generally do not have equitable access to health services. It is clear from the national census data of our countries that children and adults die as a result of this, but it is not a cause of alarm for the majority of the population.

The naturalization of racism explains why racism is not usually associated with events such as the fact that the majority of the population is not indignant, but even finds it “necessary” for the “common good”, when communities of indigenous peoples are displaced from their ancestral territories to make the businesses of agricultural and mining corporations, or companies that promote tourism developments and “closed neighborhoods” possible. Similarly, this naturalization explains why the majority of the population is not outraged to see that these communities are not able to have their claims on the matter duly dealt with by “the Justice Service”, nor when, in face of the protests from these communities in search of justice, the public authorities send the “security forces” to “put order”, which often leads to abuse, torture and even murder. This naturalization operates in such a way that, if the aforementioned chain of injustices was not already a sufficient dose of racism, the same dominant media that tore their clothes off for the murder of George Floyd, presents those circumstances in such a way that they end up criminalizing the very victims of so many racist abuses. Then, the “public opinion” of a good part of the educated middle classes (including graduates from universities and other higher education institutions) repeats in chorus: What an outrage! These people don’t understand. They are backward, they are violent.

The serious problems I am pointing out here, and many others, are documented in reports by United Nations special rapporteurs and in documents by ECLAC – Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean – available on the Internet. [1]

Although openly discriminatory behavior towards these individuals and communities is becoming less common in some countries in the region, there are historically accumulated disadvantages, institutional mechanisms and some dominant forms of common sense, which continue to reproduce inequities. These inequities are often imperceptible to other social sectors, which in some cases minimize their importance in the belief that other social groups also suffer discrimination.

In Latin America, problems of discrimination do not only affect individuals and communities of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants. Various forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia also affect individuals and communities of Gypsy, Jewish and Muslim peoples, as well as immigrants of some nationalities in particular, with specificities that vary from country to country. Discrimination also tends to target individuals and groups who must live in very disadvantageous socio-economic situations, and who are represented as “poor” by the hegemonic media, a large part of the so-called “middle classes” and certain orientations of economic and social research and policies. Other serious forms of institutional and interpersonal discrimination and violence particularly affect women, and people with disabilities, or with diverse gender identities or sexual orientation. Discrimination is often compounded when the persons targeted have more than one “negative” attribute in the eyes of those who discriminate against them, such as, for example, being a black lesbian woman. Problems of discrimination are not limited to obvious violent acts; they also affect opportunities for education, employment and access to housing. These are all serious problems in all our societies. However, those that harm individuals and communities of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants have centuries of history and – although transformed – continue to exist. Furthermore, and despite this, they tend to receive little attention from a large part of the population, public institutions, the media, and universities and other types of higher education institutions in their respective societies.

The naturalization of racism in Higher Education systems and institutions

Racism is a profound and naturalized problem in Latin American societies, and education systems bear a large part of the responsibility for this. Universities and other institutions of higher education, in particular, are responsible for training teachers at other levels of education, as well as professionals and technicians who consciously or unconsciously continue to reproduce various forms of racism. The responsibility for these events is not limited to higher education institutions, but includes all the instances and actors that when put together are called systems: the laws and policies that regulate their operation, the organizations that implement them and those that evaluate and accredit institutions and careers. However, the problem of racism is serious and widespread in our societies and its reproduction and naturalization involves higher education graduates, such as those who legislate and those who formulate and implement policies, among other occupations, from which they could at least try not to continue reproducing it.

A significant example of the naturalization of racism in higher education is the fact that while a good number of Latin American universities have adopted protocols for the prevention and attention of cases of discrimination and gender violence, as well as towards people with disabilities or with gender identities or sexual orientation not adjusted to the hegemonic “morality”, we have yet to see the existence of instruments of this type that specifically address the various ways in which racism affects indigenous peoples and people of African descent in and from these institutions . In other words, protocols aimed at ensuring prevention and attention to cases of discrimination against people, as well as the exclusions and disqualifications exercised in higher education systems and institutions regarding the languages, histories, world views, lore and knowledge systems, values and forms of spirituality of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants. These protocols should also respond to the challenges of racism implicit in the absence or insufficiency of programs that favor the entry of students, teachers and other workers from these peoples, as well as policies that finance sustained experiences for research and links with their communities, as those that do exist for other social and economic actors. Some universities have already begun to discuss the need for such protocols, but so far, we are not aware that any have been adopted.

The inequalities that result from the contrast between attention to these other forms of discrimination and the neglect of those affecting these peoples are less visible forms of racism than personal discrimination, but no less serious. Moreover, the omission of ethical, professional and academic learning opportunities associated with the knowledge of these peoples’ contributions, such as the absence or deficiency of opportunities for bonding and sharing mutual knowledge with their individuals and communities, affects the quality of the education that these systems and institutions provide.

There are many graduates of universities and other higher education institutions who – consciously or unconsciously – play leading roles in the violation of the human rights of persons and communities of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants. For example: lawyers with deficient ethical and historical training who are in charge of devising artifices to violate the territorial and environmental rights of these peoples’ communities for the benefit of landowners and agricultural, oil, mining and tourism development corporations. Health professionals, who lack training and intercultural experience in dealing with these peoples’ communities, assess their preventive and therapeutic knowledge. Economists, sociologists and other professionals with responsibilities in the design and execution of public policies who have not been trained to value their modalities of social and productive organization, decide on the construction of dams that flood their territories without foreseeing consequences.

Professionals in various fields who have been educated in contempt for the history of these peoples, their languages, values and knowledge systems, and who in the exercise of public office undermine their access to health, justice and education services. Businessmen and corporate authorities who, in spite of the fact that they are, in general terms, university graduates, lack ethical training and information about these peoples, to the extent that they violate their rights for the sake of profit. Security force officials and authorities, who in many countries of the region have graduated from universities or higher education institutions of the security forces, who have received such poor training in regard to the values and rights of these peoples and their members that they repeatedly engage in racist practices. The heads of the public bodies on which the security forces depend, who are also often university graduates, give racist orders to these forces.

The aforementioned problems should draw our attention to the poor quality of education that our higher education systems and institutions are providing. We need to reflect on them. It is not possible to accept uncritically that universities and other institutions of higher education continue to reproduce and naturalize racism. Nor is it acceptable that, in the twenty-first century, they are not proactively working to end it.

Racism not only creates problems of access, success and graduation of persons of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants in higher education institutions; it also affects the quality of the education they provide, their role as shapers of public opinion and citizenship, and the quality of the technicians and professionals they train and the research they carry out.

Eradication of racism and anti-racist education

I think that the problems outlined above illustrate why it is not enough for higher education systems and institutions to be not racist. They must be anti-racist, they must educate against racism, they must be committed to eradicating racism within themselves and in the societies of which they are a part.

Fortunately, the need to act on this issue is already part of the agenda of a growing number of institutions and individuals, as was evident at the Regional Conference on Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean, held in Cordoba in June 2018 (CRES 2018).

More than five thousand representatives of higher education systems and institutions from all over the region participated in CRES 2018, including authorities from government agencies with competence in the matter, rectors and other authorities from universities and other institutions, networks of authorities and universities, specialists in the field, students and their federations, teachers and other workers and their unions. This significant meeting issued a final declaration that included a number of recommendations regarding racism, including the following:

“Higher education policies and institutions must proactively contribute to the dismantling of all mechanisms that generate racism, sexism, xenophobia and all forms of intolerance and discrimination. It is imperative that the rights of all population groups that are discriminated on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, disability, sexual orientation, religion, nationality and forced displacement, be guaranteed”.

“These changes should ensure the incorporation of these peoples and social groups’ worldviews, values, lore, know-how, language systems, forms of learning and modes of knowledge production, into higher education institutions”.

“It is imperative to recognize and value the epistemologies, modes of learning and institutional designs of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants, rural communities and other socio-culturally differentiated communities”.

“Education is not only a human right but also a right of peoples. Latin American and Caribbean States and societies owe a significant historical debt to indigenous and Afro-descendent peoples. Although their rights are recognized in numerous international instruments and in most national constitutions, there is an alarming deficit in their effective application, including in higher education. Higher education institutions must guarantee the effective employment of their rights and educate the population in general, and particularly their communities, against racism and all forms of discrimination and related intolerance”. [2]

This declaration marks a milestone in the history of higher education in the region as it expresses progress in the denaturalization of racism in its field, and even outlines some key objectives. The challenge is to make them come true.

To achieve these objectives, it is recommendable to be careful with certain uses of the category “structural racism”. Because while it emphasizes the importance and depth of the problem, certain uses of it seem to visualize it as if it was an omnipresent phenomenon that is “everywhere”, and thus in no particular place. In order to make concrete progress in eradicating racism in higher education systems and institutions, it is necessary to disaggregate the category of ‘structural racism’ and to refine the analysis of the multiple ways in which it is expressed and reproduced in this field. To this end, it is necessary to evaluate specific institutional frameworks, norms, procedures, actors, subjectivities, institutional and personal practices, in terms of teaching, management, research, outreach and experiences of engagement with individuals and communities of these peoples.

There is a need to encourage research and participatory activities that  promote reflection and debate leading to consensus on protocols aimed at ensuring the prevention of all forms of racism in higher education systems and institutions. [3]

It is necessary to identify and eradicate all of them, because in addition to the negativity inherent in each, they happen to be mutually reinforcing. In order to eradicate racism in this area, it is neither sufficient nor effective to have protocols that focus only on forms of personal racial discrimination. It is necessary to carry out studies and to promote debates and reflections that will make it possible to eradicate other forms of racism, such as the absence or insufficiency of programs that encourage the entry of students, teachers and other workers of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants; as well as the exclusions and disqualifications of their languages, histories, lore and knowledge systems; and also the absence or insufficiency of support for research and links with their communities.

All of us who are part of the higher education systems and institutions are responsible for the persistence of these problems in our field, whether by action or omission. It is our responsibility to transform these systems and institutions in order to contribute – from them – to build societies that are free of racism; societies that are democratic, equitable and inclusive, capable of feeding on the cultural diversity that characterizes them. Only in this way will we be able to prevent murders such as that of George Floyd and others of a similar nature, which continue to occur, both in the United States and throughout Latin America, and also to end other injustices that are the consequence of various forms of racism. The key questions are: In what ways can higher education systems and institutions contribute to end racism? How can each one of us contribute to this?

– Simultaneously published on the IESALC portal and as No. 21 of the Colección Apuntes of the Initiative for the Eradication of Racism in Higher Education, of the UNESCO Chair in Higher Education and Indigenous and Afro-descendant Peoples in Latin America, National University of Tres de Febrero – UNTREF.

– Daniel Mato is principal researcher of the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research – CONICET and director of the UNESCO Chair in Higher Education and Indigenous and Afro-descendant Peoples in Latin America, National University of Tres de Febrero – UNTREF, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

[1] See for example:

• Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) / Fund for the Development of Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean (FILAC) (2020), Indigenous peoples of Latin America – Abya Yala and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: tensions and challenges from a territorial perspective, Project Documents (LC / TS.2020 / 47). Available: http://www.filac.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Los-Pueblos-Indigenas-de-Am%C3%A9rica-lLatina-y-la-Agenda-2030-para-el-Desarrollo-Sostenible.pdf )
• UN (2005) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen (E / CN.4 / 2005/88). Available: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/169/40/PDF/G0416940.pdf?OpenElement
• UN (2010) Report of the Working Group of experts on people of African Descent. Visit to Ecuador (A / HRC / 13/59). Available: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/102/07/PDF/G1010207.pdf?OpenElement
• UN (2013) Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent on its twelfth session. Mission to Panama ( A/HRC/24/52/Add.2 ). Available: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/164/35/PDF/G1316435.pdf?OpenElement
• UN (2014) Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent on its fourteenth session. Mission to Brazil (A / HRC / 27/68 / Add). Available: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/168/64/PDF/G1416864.pdf?OpenElement
• ONU (2019) Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent. Visit to Argentina (A/HRC/42/59/Add.2). Disponible: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G19/242/57/PDF/G1924257.pdf?OpenElement

[2]  The CRES 2018 Final Declaration is available at: http://espacioenlaces.org/declaracion-cres-2018/

[3]   In 2018, the UNESCO Chair on Higher Education and Indigenous and Afro-descendent Peoples, in collaboration with more than twenty universities of ten Latin American countries, launched the Initiative for the Eradication of Racism in Higher Education, whose website, among other useful resources to promote reflection and debate on racism in higher education, offers seventy micro-videos, twenty short and easy-to-read texts, and numerous publications on experiences in this field ( http://unesco.untref.edu.ar/ ).

Read the version of this article in portuguese “ O caso george floyd e o racismo nos sistemas e instituições de ensino superior ” in Portuguese translated by the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte .

Other recent press releases

On World Teachers’ Day

IESALC presents the conclusions of its report on international trends on the evaluation of learning in HE

Young people from different regions exchanged ideas on transforming educational pedagogy through innovation

Technology has come to stay in higher education

IESALC: Mobility in Latin America and the Caribbean is still a challenge

23 countries adopted the new Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Degrees and Diplomas in Higher Education in LAC

Higher education both fights and reproduces racism

The role of universities in post-pandemic economic recovery

UNESCO IESALC strengthens links with INTEC in Dominican Republic

• © UNESCO IESALC 2023
• Disclaimer of use
• Website Privacy Notice
• Opportunities

Share this via Facebook Share this via X Share this via WhatsApp Share this via Email Other ways to share Share this via LinkedIn Share this via Reddit Share this via Telegram Share this via Printer

Download the full report in English

Racial Discrimination in the United States

Human Rights Watch / ACLU Joint Submission Regarding the United States’ Record Under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Protesters at a rally in Minneapolis call for justice for George Floyd after closing arguments in the Derek Chauvin trial ended on April 19, 2021. © 2021 Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Introduction

The United States signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD” or “Convention”) in 1966. President Lyndon Johnson’s administration noted at the time that the United States “has not always measured up to its constitutional heritage of equality for all” but that it was “on the march” toward compliance. [1] The United States finally ratified the Convention in 1994 and first reported on its progress in implementing the Convention to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (“CERD” or “Committee”) in 2000. In August 2022, the Committee will examine the combined 10 th – 12 th periodic reports by the United States on compliance with the Convention. This report supplements the submission of the government with additional information in key areas and offers recommendations that will, if adopted, enhance the government’s ability to comply with ICERD.

In its 2000 report, the United States stated that “overt discrimination” is “less pervasive than it was thirty years ago” but admitted it continued due to “subtle forms of discrimination” that “persist[ed] in American society.” [2] The forms of discrimination reported to the United Nations by the United States included “inadequate enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws”; “ineffective use and dissemination of data”; economic disadvantage experienced by minority groups; “persistent discrimination in employment and labour relations”; “segregation and discrimination in housing” leading to diminished educational opportunities for minorities; lack of equal access to capital, credit markets and technology; discrimination in the criminal legal system; lack of adequate access to health insurance and health care; and discrimination against immigrants, among other harmful effects. [3] The United States also noted the heightened impact of racism on women and children.

It has now been more than 50 years since the US signed the ICERD, nearly 30 years since it ratified the Convention, and more than 20 since it identified the extensive foregoing list of impediments to its effective implementation. Yet progress toward compliance remains elusive—indeed, grossly inadequate—in numerous key areas including reparative justice; discrimination in the US criminal legal system; use of force by law enforcement officials; discrimination in the regulation and enforcement of migration control; and stark disparities in the areas of economic opportunity and health care. Structural racism and xenophobia persist as powerful and pervasive forces in American society.

During his first days in office, President Joseph Biden called for urgent action to advance equity for all, calling this a “battle for the soul of [the] nation” because “systemic racism” is “corrosive,” “destructive” and “costly.” [4] As this report and its annex, jointly authored by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, demonstrate, the US has a great deal of work ahead to realize the promises of the ICERD. [5] This report therefore includes important recommendations in areas in which our organizations have specialized expertise, for addressing some of the US’s most flagrant violations of the Convention. Additionally, although we recognize the political challenges facing the Biden Administration as it seeks to promote racial equity, we note that its recent declarations on racial justice are disconnected from the government’s longstanding human rights obligations under the ICERD. The attached annex therefore identifies additional, more targeted measures to align President Biden’s commitments with the ICERD. These measures are both fully within the control of the executive branch of the federal government and powerful enough to give life to the President’s stated commitment to put “every branch of the White House and the federal government” to work in the effort to “eliminate systemic racism” in the United States. [6]

President Biden has declared that racism, xenophobia, nativism, and other forms of intolerance are “global problems.” [7] The ICERD is an important part of the solution and to confront these global problems effectively, the US should fulfill its obligations under the treaty. [8] This report and its detailed annex offer an initial roadmap for the US to do exactly that.

Reparative Justice for the Legacy of Enslavement

Article 6 of the ICERD establishes the right to remedy and to seek just and adequate reparation for acts of racial discrimination such as enslavement, the many post-emancipation crimes against Black people in the United States, and the insufficiently remediated ongoing discriminatory structures. The US government has never adequately addressed the gross human rights violations perpetrated against Black people as part of chattel slavery or the exploitation, segregation, and violence unleashed on Black people that followed. The discrimination against Black people that is a legacy of enslavement persists and is perpetuated by economic, health, education, law enforcement, and housing, and other policies and practices that fail to adequately address racial disparities—part of the ongoing structural racism and racial subjugation that prevents many Black people from advancing, and facilitates police violence, housing segregation, and a lack of access to education and employment opportunities, among other things. States are obligated under the ICERD to overcome such structural discrimination, both through effective remedies—such as reparations and “special measures”—and through the Convention’s obligation to “[t]ake steps to remove all obstacles that prevent the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by people of African descent especially in the areas of education, housing, employment and health.” [9]

The ICERD requires States Parties to “assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination” and to ensure “the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.” [10] The CERD has noted that the right to seek just and adequate reparation “is not necessarily secured by the punishment of the perpetrator of the discrimination” and that “the courts and other competent authorities should consider awarding financial compensation for damage, material or moral, suffered by a victim, whenever appropriate.” [11] The UN has also established principles on the right of victims to remedies and reparations, and specifically set forth the right to reparations for people of African descent. [12] Although States generally only incur international responsibility for acts that are both internationally wrongful and attributable to the State, this principle does not apply to slavery and its legacy. [13] While the US has enacted civil rights statutes since the 1950s, such legislation has been largely ineffective at curbing structural discrimination and racial inequality because of judicial decisions that significantly undermined their scope and meager government enforcement and investment, as well as the onerous requirements of discriminatory intent instead of discriminatory effect. Further, the US has consistently indicated in its ICERD reporting that “inadequate funding” is one of the central reasons for insufficient federal enforcement. [14] The failure of the US to expand enforcement efforts and resources while acknowledging these widespread disparities over the last twenty-two years since it became a party to ICERD requires immediate redress.

Reparative intervention for historical and contemporary racial injustice is urgent and required by ICERD. [15] The deep racial harms and unequal structures that are inextricably rooted in chattel slavery remain unremedied, perpetuating systemic inequality. Scholars have estimated that the US benefited from 222,505,049 hours of forced labor between 1619 and the end of slavery in 1865, which would be valued at $97 trillion today. [16] In 1860 alone, there were four million enslaved Africans whose labor is valued at least $3 billion , [17] which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined . [18] Enslaved people were subjected to brutal  forced labor as well as formal and informal state-sanctioned discrimination that resulted in severe economic damage, in addition to psychological, social and political harm. [19]

Black people in the US continue to endure severe economic disadvantages in wealth [20] and income [21] and suffer from discriminatory policies in land and home ownership, [22] denial of health care, [23] and segregation in education. [24] The resulting disparities are staggering: The average white family has roughly ten times the wealth of the average Black family and white college graduates have over seven times more wealth than Black college graduates. [25] With the current pace of growth in wealth among Black families, it will take an estimated 230 years for Black families to obtain the same amount of wealth that white families currently have. [26] About 21 percent of Black people in the United States live in poverty, more than double the rate for white people (8.8 percent). [27] Although “these wealth disparities are rooted in historic injustices and carried forward by recent and ongoing practices and policies that fail to reverse inequitable trends,” [28] to date the US government has not done nearly enough to address the lasting and contemporary racially discriminatory effects of structures of inequality and racial subordination. It has also openly admitted to failing to provide sufficient resources for civil rights enforcement even though ICERD requires restitution, compensation, and restoration. [29]

While the CERD has not yet made specific recommendations to the US with regard to reparative justice, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her 2021 report on systemic racism in law enforcement, urged the US (alongside other governments) to initiate reparations. [30] Although some localities have implemented reparation initiatives or commissions to address past racially motivated harms, [31] there remains no formal nationwide federal initiative to advance reparations. Neither US courts nor other tribunals have provided reliable remedies for the descendants of enslaved people. [32] H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act, a bill currently before the House of Representatives, would establish a commission to study the effects of slavery and recommend appropriate remedies. [33] But no progress has been reported as of this writing. [34] In sum, the US federal government continues to neglect its ICERD commitments to remedy the systemic, longstanding and grave legacy of enslavement and racial discrimination.

To address ongoing structural racism and legacies of enslavement, the US should:

• Establish a federal commission by legislative action or executive order to study and develop reparations proposals for the descendants of enslaved people.
• Appropriate effective resources for federal economic and civil rights programs to address long-term structural racism and provide assistance to low-wealth and low-income Black communities.

Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Legal System

Mass incarceration.

Article 2(1) of ICERD states that States Parties need to pursue the elimination of racial discrimination in all its forms. ICERD prohibits discriminatory practices and requires that States Parties “take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws which have the effect of creating or perpetuating discrimination.” [35] Additionally, Article 5 guarantees equality before the law, including “the right to equal treatment before tribunals and all other organs administering justice”; [36] and article 6 requires states to guarantee “effective protection and remedies, through competent national tribunals,” against acts of racial discrimination. [37]

The CERD has broadly articulated that “the mere fact of belonging to a racial or ethnic group . . . is not a sufficient reason, de jure or de facto, to place a person in pretrial detention” [38] and that States should “ensure that the courts do not apply harsher punishments solely because of an accused person’s membership of a specific racial or ethnic group.” [39] Additionally, the UN, in its 2021 common position on incarceration, stated that “incarceration should be used as a last resort,” and recommended shifting to non-custodial alternatives. [40]

The CERD has repeatedly emphasized profound concerns with the US criminal legal system, first articulated in its 2001 Concluding Observations to the US, in which it noted that “the incarceration rate is particularly high with regard to African-Americans and Hispanics.” [41] It thus recommended that the US take “firm action to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin,” to equal treatment before all organs administering justice. [42] In its most recent review, the Committee went further, expressing its concern that “members of racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, continue to be disproportionately arrested, incarcerated and subjected to harsher sentences, including life imprisonment without parole and the death penalty.” [43] It specifically recommended that the US amend “laws and policies leading to racially disparate impacts in the criminal justice system” at all levels of government and implement “effective national strategies or plans of action aimed at eliminating structural discrimination.” [44] In its 2021 submission, the US reported that the federal prison population had dropped to its lowest level since 2000, “declining almost 31% since 2013,” [45] though it is worth noting that the federal prison population only represents about 10 percent of the total US prison population. [46] Further, the federal prison population has grown under President Biden. [47] The US also cited the First Step Act, enacted by Congress in December 2018, [48] as central in making reductions possible. In its 2021 submission the US reported that of the total number of people who received reduced sentences as a result of the First Step Act, 91 percent were Black , which is consistent with the historic over-policing and overcharging of Black communities. [49] At the same time, the US failed to mention that its own Department of Justice (DOJ) found the risk assessment tool  the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN) created by DOJ in connection with the First Step Act, resulted in racial disparities. [50] Despite repeated attempts at reform, the tool continues to overestimate the number of Black women who will engage in recidivism, compared to white women, and produces other racial disparities. [51]

While some reforms have taken effect over the last decade, the US has failed to systematically address the immense breadth and depth of harm caused by its criminal legal system–harms that are the product of deliberate legal and policy choices created by a dominant white population supported by a culture of white supremacy. [52]

US authorities hold almost two million people in detention and correctional facilities across the  United States , [53] and they imprison Black people at a rate three times higher than white people . [54] Black women are imprisoned at a rate that is 1.7 times the rate of white women. [55] While systemic discrimination against Black people is particularly blatant, the US also disproportionately punishes Indigenous [56] and Latinx [57] people.       

Racial discrimination is also deeply woven into the policing and charging practices that harass, target, and subject Black people and other people of color to the most severe punishments available. One out of seven people in prison are serving a life sentence , [58] and nearly half of that group is Black. [59] US authorities continue to apply the death penalty both discriminatorily and arbitrarily.

In 2021, more than half of people executed were Black, and approximately 60% of people sentenced to death were Black or Latinx . [60] Nearly 200 people on death row have been exonerated since 1972—1 for every 8.3 people executed. [61] In fact, both death-row exonerees in 2021 were Black men imprisoned in Mississippi for nearly three decades because of false forensic testimony . [62]

Mass incarceration harms not only those incarcerated, disproportionately people of color, but entire communities. About half of adults in the US have had an immediate family member incarcerated in jail or prison. [63] Black people are 50 percent more likely to have experienced familial incarceration than whites, and they are three times as likely to have had a family member incarcerated for a year or longer . [64] Research also shows that nearly half of incarcerated people in state prisons and almost 60 percent in federal prisons are parents with minor children, [65] and Black children are six times more likely than their white peers to have had a parent behind bars . [66]

One of the most damaging aspects of mass incarceration in the United States is the harm caused to incarcerated people by dangerous and degrading conditions in prisons, jails, and other places of detention. Practices such as solitary confinement , [67] denial of adequate medical and mental healthcare , [68] and sexual and other violence [69] cause lasting injury, and sometimes death, to those exposed to them. Because of space limitations, this report does not discuss these conditions of confinement in detail, but they are an inseparable element of the harm caused by mass incarceration.

To address the discriminatory impact of mass incarceration, the US should:

• Reduce the role of police in addressing societal problems (including homelessness, mental health, and poverty) and invest instead in community-based non-carceral solutions to such societal problems. 
• Abolish the death penalty and consider the elimination of life, and virtual life, sentences; eliminate sentence enhancements and minimum-time-served requirements; and expand access to early-release mechanisms such as good-time credits, parole, and clemency. These legal changes should be extended to offenses classified as violent and applied retroactively.
• Invest in crime prevention programs and alternatives to incarceration including community-based crisis intervention services that are trauma-informed, culturally competent, and do not exclude offenses classified as violent.
• Record, maintain, track, and publicly disseminate data on convictions, sentencing, and incarceration including racial and ethnic demographics.

Youth/Juvenile Justice

The ICERD requires States to “pay the greatest attention possible with a view to ensuring that [children from racial minorities] benefit from the special regime to which they are entitled in relation to the execution of sentences.” [70] Other prominent human rights bodies have reinforced this message. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has stated that “particular attention must be paid to de facto discrimination and [racial] disparities” [71] and urged states to provide “appropriate support and assistance” to reintegrate young people who commit crimes. [72] In its most recent recommendations to the US, the CERD urged the US to intensify efforts to address the “school-to-prison pipeline,” ensure that young people are not placed in adult criminal settings, and abolish life-without-parole sentences for people under eighteen. [73]

Racial inequities pervade every stage of the juvenile legal system. Black and brown young people are more likely than their white peers to be stopped and harassed by the police. [74] This increases the likelihood of future arrest: Black young people who come into contact with the police by eighth grade have eleven times greater odds of being arrested in young adulthood. [75] Once arrested, Black young people are four times as likely to be detained as white young people. [76] Black young people comprise just fifteen percent of the US youth population, but forty-one percent of those confined in juvenile facilities. [77] Black children are also disproportionately likely to be charged as adults. [78] Indeed, eighty percent of young people serving life sentences are children of color, and more than fifty percent are Black. [79] The traumas of incarceration—which are especially acute for children in adult prisons and include sexual abuse, solitary confinement, and death by suicide—therefore fall too often on children of color, especially Black youth. [80]

To address the discriminatory impact of policies criminalizing youth:

• Provide supportive services for and investment in child-centered, trauma informed youth programs, education, and mental health care.
• Refrain from prosecuting children in adult court, utilizing incarceration as a last resort after other interventions have been tried, and instead treat them as children, with a focus on opportunities for education, healing, and healthy development instead of punishment.

Criminalization of Poverty – Homelessness, Bail, Fines, and Fees

Beyond the general requirement that “all public authorities and public institutions, national and local” eschew racial discrimination, [81] the ICERD contains provisions that bear specifically on homelessness and poverty. Article 5(e) of the Convention addresses discrimination in protections against unemployment and the provision of social security and social services. [82] Additionally, Article 5(f) articulates a “right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public.” [83] In 2014, the CERD expressed concern over the “high number of homeless persons, who are disproportionately from racial and ethnic minorities,” and the “criminalization of homelessness through laws that prohibit activities such as loitering, camping, begging and lying down in public spaces.” [84] The Committee recommended abolishing laws criminalizing homelessness, and “intensify[ing] efforts to find solutions for the homeless, in accordance with human rights standards.” [85]

Although the US has previously acknowledged the CERD’s concerns, [86] the criminalization of homelessness remains a pressing social problem across the United States—and one that continues to burden people of color disproportionately. In 2020, there were an estimated 580,000 unhoused people in the United States, 39 percent of whom were Black, despite only being 12 percent of the US total population. [87] Fifty-three percent of unhoused families with children were Black. Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander people made up 1 percent of the US population, but 5 percent of the unhoused. [88] Many localities persist in criminalizing the presence of homeless persons in public places [89] —in essence, punishing people for lacking a home by prohibiting sleeping outside, loitering, or requesting assistance from others. [90] For instance, in one town near Los Angeles, California, only 1.3 percent of the population is homeless, but that group received a staggering 26% of all citations issued in the town by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. [91] Zealous targeting of homeless populations essentially for being homeless inexorably feeds a vicious cycle of escalating enforcement, generating misdemeanors, warrants, unpayable fines, and incarceration. [92] The criminalization of homelessness now includes arrests, citations, and forced banishment of people through encampment clearances and property destruction by sanitation workers and police. [93] In cities like Los Angeles as well as elsewhere in the US, a long history of racial discrimination in housing, lending, employment, policing, and other factors (government policies like “urban renewal” and freeway construction included)  have led to high levels of Black homelessness. [94]

Poverty implicates issues of concern to CERD outside the context of homelessness as well. The US has conceded that, within the criminal legal system, some rights are contingent upon ability to pay. Although variation occurs across US states, the US has noted that “persons with felony convictions may … have to pay any outstanding fees, fines, or restitution before [voting] rights are restored” upon release from incarceration. [95] While this statement indicates some recognition of the problem, the federal government’s current actions are inadequate to remedy the immense harm to poor individuals stemming from the criminal legal system, a system that keeps the already marginalized in poverty. [96] In its most recent response to the CERD, the US fails to address the crushing effects of fines and fees accompanying low-level infractions, the accumulation of which affect the poorest in society, who pay the vast majority of these penalties. [97] A study in Tulsa, Oklahoma found that Black residents were disproportionately subject to county-based warrants that are often issued for minor infractions such as failure to pay court costs, fines, and fees. [98] The threat of rearrest for one’s inability to afford mounting debt keeps people in a cycle of incarceration and forces families to decide between paying fines and fees and purchasing necessities such as diapers and formula for their children. [99] Mothers are separated for lengthy periods of time from their children as a result of being held in custody, sometimes lengthened due to the fines and fees. [100]   

Furthermore, pretrial incarceration, often ordered by judges setting unaffordable money bail, disproportionately harms low-income and low-wealth people of color. In the case of bail, wealthy defendants are more able to secure their freedom while poor ones are forced to remain incarcerated, affecting their livelihoods and family ties. [101] Pretrial incarceration leads to increased likelihood of convictions and harsher sentences. [102] People held in jail pretrial are   pressured to plead guilty to secure their release, regardless of their actual guilt or innocence. [103] Additionally, pretrial incarceration can result in even more fines and fees, as some jails bill detained people for each day of their detention. [104] These inequalities have troubling racial implications, as Black people are 2.5 times more likely than white people to live in poverty and face much higher arrest rates. [105]

To address the criminalization of poverty, US states should:

• Stop criminalizing homelessness and its inevitable consequences, which only further serves to penalize disadvantaged individuals already suffering from inadequate allocation of governmental resources.
• Reduce the circumstances in which courts can order pretrial incarceration, through bail setting or other means, only to those in which there is strong evidence of imminent harm if a person is released pretrial, and only following a rigorous hearing to evaluate that evidence.
• Invest in pretrial services programs providing court date reminders, transportation, and other support to ensure court appearances.
• Drastically reduce the number and amounts of fines and fees in the US criminal legal system. Further, establish national standards for criminal-legal system debt, including guidelines on ability- to- pay determinations and collection practices.

Probation and Parole

Probation and parole are portrayed as alternatives to incarceration, but in reality they drive high numbers of people—particularly Black and brown people—into jail and prison. [106] About 4 million people in the US are on probation or parole, [107] and nearly half of all state prison admissions stem from violations of the conditions of probation or parole. [108] Black people are 4.15 times more likely to be under supervision than white people, and remain on supervision longer than similarly situated whites. [109]

Black people are also more likely to be incarcerated for supervision violations. Due to generations of structural racism, Black and brown people are less likely to have resources, such as housing, wealth, reliable transportation, and jobs, that make it feasible to complete the onerous requirements of supervision. [110] Meanwhile, they are disproportionately stopped, searched, and arrested by police—making them more likely to be incarcerated for probation or parole violations. [111] And some supervision conditions—such as requirements to stay away from people with felony records—disproportionately burden Black men, one in three of whom have a felony conviction. [112]

To address racial disparities in probation and parole, US authorities should:

• Drastically reduce the use of supervision sentences for youth and adults and instead utilize real alternatives to incarceration.  
• Where supervision is used, shorten supervision periods, narrowly tailor conditions, and stop incarcerating people for violations that would not otherwise be a crime.

Reentry Issues – Impact of Criminal Records on Housing and Unemployment

The ICERD requires States to take “special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,” [113] including the right to work and the right to housing. [114] The Committee has raised concerns about persistent housing and employment racial disparities in the US. [115]

The United States imposes more than 48,000 legal restrictions on people with criminal records—barring them from work, housing, jobs, and civic engagement. [116] These barriers disproportionately impact Black and brown people, who are more likely to have criminal records [117] and to face discrimination when attempting to access housing and employment. [118] Sixty-four percent of unemployed men in their thirties have criminal records, and Black men are almost twice as likely as white men to be unemployed. [119]

Additionally, the high rate at which the US subjects Black people to correctional control results in their underrepresentation in the US electorate, as many US jurisdictions deny voting rights to people on probation and parole, and nearly all deny those rights to people in prison. [120]

To address racial discrimination in re-entry, US jurisdictions should:

• Repeal US laws allowing and facilitating discrimination and/or exclusions based solely on an individual’s arrest or conviction, including restrictions or exclusions from employment, housing, access to social benefits, and voting.

Racist Drug Laws and Racism in Public Health Approaches

The ICERD guarantees the right to equal treatment generally and, under Article 2(c), requires States Parties to “take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations that have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists.” [121] In its General Recommendation XXXI, the CERD recommended that States “pay the greatest attention” to “proportionately higher crime rates attributed to persons belonging to [racial minorities], particularly as regards petty street crime and offenses related to drugs” as an indication of the “non-integration of such persons into society.” [122] Additionally, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) has called for the “decriminalization of drug possession for personal use” and the “elimination of stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs.” [123] In its 2014 concluding observations to the US, the CERD expressed concern over “the application of mandatory minimum drug-offense sentencing policies” that exacerbate racial disparities in the criminal legal system. [124] Additionally, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights highlighted the “confused and counterproductive drug policies” in the US in his 2018 country report. The report described how, in the context of drug addiction in the US, the “main responses have been punitive,” rather than the appropriate response of “increased funding and improved access to vital care and support.” [125] The report further suggested that this “urge to punish” has “racial undertones,” noting the disparities in sentencing between Black users of crack cocaine and white users of opioids. [126] Similarly, the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent has urged the US to amend any judicial policies that disproportionately target Black people, stating that “the war on drugs has operated more effectively as a system of racial control than as a mechanism for combating the use or trafficking of narcotics.” [127]

In its 2021 report to the CERD, the US pointed to the 2018 enactment of the First Step Act, a law that reduced racial disparities in sentences for certain drug crimes. [128] While these reforms are helpful, they do not do nearly enough to remedy past discriminatory treatment or change laws, policies and practices in ways that would prevent it in the future.

Nearly 400,000 people are in prison for drug crimes. [129] The vast majority of individuals incarcerated in federal prison are there on a drug charge, [130] and by some estimates, nearly eighty percent of people in federal prison for drug offenses are Black or Latinx. [131] Though Black and white people use drugs at similar rates, [132] Black people are imprisoned for drug crimes at five times the rate of white people. [133] “Black people [a]re arrested at over three times the rate of white people, and up to eight times as often in some states,” for marijuana offenses. [134] Additionally, police have targeted Black people specifically for federal prosecution, because “federal drug laws carry harsher punishment—including mandatory minimum sentences—than charges brought in state court.” [135] Though some authorities have begun to embrace a less punitive, more health-based approach to substance use disorders, this shift is still far too limited, and only began to take place after years of especially harsh treatment of Black people as part of the War on Drugs amidst an opioid crisis associated primarily with white people. [136] Further, drug arrests–the vast majority for possession–remain the leading cause of arrest in the US. [137]

Black people have in fact been hit the hardest by the opioid crisis in recent years, one that has only worsened since the Covid-19 pandemic began. One study shows a thirty-eight percent increase in overdoses among Black people between 2018 and 2019 across four states. [138] Additionally, some states have responded to the opioid crisis by passing drug-induced homicide laws, which seek to charge people with murder for selling drugs that may have led to an overdose. Such laws can result in the disproportionate prosecution of Black and Latinx people—providing another basis for subjecting individuals of color to lengthy prison terms for drug-related offenses. [139]

To make drug policy more rights-respecting, the US should:

• Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses and repeal drug-induced homicide laws.
• End sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
• Decriminalize possession of drugs for personal use.
• Enact laws or otherwise encourage processes to review and clear past drug convictions, including a process to expunge convictions for marijuana sales as marijuana is legalized for sale and a means to invest resources obtained from marijuana licensing to communities most harmed by past prohibitions on marijuana.
• Invest in treatment and harm-reduction programs to provide trauma-informed and culturally competent support to people living with substance use disorders.

Prison Labor

ICERD Article 5 includes the rights to work, free choice of employment, just and favorable conditions of work, equal pay for equal work, and just and favorable remuneration. [140] Further, the guidelines for prison labor set out in the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the ”Rules”) prohibit work “of an afflictive nature,” require permitting incarcerated people to “choose the type of work they wish to perform,” and mandate that such labor be supplemented with vocational training. [141] The Rules also state that the “precautions laid down to protect the safety and health of free workmen shall be equally observed in [correctional] institutions,” and that “[p]rovision shall be made to indemnify prisoners against industrial injury, including occupational disease, on terms not less favorable than those extended by law to free workmen.” [142]

Almost one million people are currently working while confined in US prisons. [143] They often work in grueling and degrading conditions for little to no pay—often pennies on the hour—and under threat of punishment (including solitary confinement) for refusing to work. [144] US law explicitly excludes incarcerated workers from the most basic workplace safety guarantees, including the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude. [145] The US prison labor system involves present-day involuntary servitude. Prison labor is also a legacy of slavery, and racial inequities persist today. [146] Black people are disproportionately incarcerated and thus overrepresented among those working in prison. [147] Black people also work lower-wage and unpaid agriculture and maintenance jobs at a disproportionate rate in prison, while a higher proportion of white people work in higher-paying prison-industries jobs. [148] Indeed, across the deep south, agricultural workers, largely Black, pick and harvest crops in prisons located on the sites of former slave plantations. [149]

To eliminate racial inequities in prison labor, the US should:

• Abolish the Thirteenth Amendment’s exclusion that allows forced labor as a punishment for a crime.
• Ensure that all work in prisons is fully voluntary by eliminating any laws and policies enabling forced labor and that punish incarcerated people who are unable or unwilling to work.
• Adopt legislation and regulations providing incarcerated workers in all prisons with the same labor protections afforded to other US workers including minimum wage, overtime pay, health and safety standards, unionization and collective bargaining, and protection from discrimination and retaliation.
• Initiate oversight investigations into federal and state prisons to eliminate forced labor of incarcerated people and discriminatory pay, allocation of work assignments, conditions, and related practices.

Racial Discrimination and Excessive Force by Law Enforcement Officials

Racially-disparate policing and enforcement practices.

Article 5(b) of the ICERD requires States Parties to ensure equity in the right to be free from “violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution.” [150] Accordingly, the CERD has called on States Parties to improve the training of their law enforcement officials, and it has long expressed concern about police profiling, bias and brutality (as well as attendant impunity) that disproportionately harms people of color in the United States. [151] The Committee even issued an Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedures Resolution after the police murder of George Floyd sparked unprecedented protests against police violence in 2020. [152]

Despite warnings from the Committee and other international human rights bodies, [153] US police agencies have failed to meet their obligations under the ICERD. The US has discussed bringing federal lawsuits against problematic police agencies [154] and proposed some federal legislation that may (if passed) help to address some of these issues, [155] but legislation failed in the US Senate, and the executive order President Biden passed in response does not go nearly far enough to save lives. [156]

People of color continue to bear the brunt of aggressive and discriminatory policing. Estimates attribute over 1,000 killings per year to the police, [157] and new research suggests that more than half of police killings are not reflected in official statistics. [158] Police also continue to kill Native Americans, Latinxs and Black people at significantly higher rates—as much as 350% more frequently—than white people. [159] Even greater racial disparities attend nonfatal uses of force by police, [160] and police likewise target people of color (especially Black people) for stops and arrests at much higher rates than white people. [161] The goal of limiting police violence in the US is linked to the need to correct imbalances between investment in services that directly address societal problems such as substance use disorders or poverty and investment in policing. [162]

These substantial, persistent imbalances notwithstanding, impunity for abuse remains a widespread problem. [163] There are over 18,000 policing agencies across the US, [164] but the US Department of Justice opened only 70 civil investigations into police departments for the possible violation of civilians’ rights between 1994 and January 2020. [165] More broadly, police rarely face prosecution or other legal consequences after engaging in brutality. [166] Additionally, much of the data needed to discern the extent of police compliance with the ICERD remain undisclosed. [167] For instance, federal efforts to create a use-of-force database for police have faltered due to widespread noncooperation from police departments–though President Biden’s executive order on policing aims to address this problem. [168] In many US states, the disciplinary records of abusive officers are also largely hidden from the public, [169] and civil society groups and universities have had to take it upon themselves to cobble together a national database on police stops of civilians. [170]

To address excessive use of force in law enforcement, the US should:

• Prohibit police from enforcing a range of non-serious offenses, including issuing fines and making arrests for non-dangerous behaviors, thus eliminating many of the unnecessary interactions between the police and community members that have led to so much violence and so many deaths.
• Invest in communities to prioritize health and quality of life over law enforcement and surveillance.
• Implement enforceable legal constraints so that there will be only rare instances in which police officers can legally use force against community members;
• Create independent oversight structures with robust enforcement and subpoena powers that ensure that when officers use force in violation of the law, policies, or training, they are held accountable.

Racial Bias and Abuse by Law Enforcement in Immigration Control

ICERD’s prohibition of discrimination, including in Article 5(b) also bears on law enforcement at the US border and in interior immigration enforcement. [171] The CERD has recommended that “all officials dealing with non-citizens receive special training, including training in human rights,” to combat ill-treatment and discrimination against non-citizens by police and law enforcement agencies. [172] In its 2008 concluding observations to the US, the CERD expressed concern over the excessive use of force against migrants, recommending that the US establish “adequate systems for monitoring police abuses” and develop “further training opportunities for law enforcement officials.” [173] In 2014, the Committee went further, reiterating concern about “increased use of racial profiling” by law enforcement to determine immigration status and recommending an end to specified immigration enforcement programs, [174] including the Secure Communities program [175] and the INA § 287(g) program. [176] The United States replied that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy prohibits racial profiling and that it issued new use of force policies and training. [177]

Despite these policies and purported reforms, US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers continue to commit acts of violence and other serious abuses against migrants. Internal DHS reports revealed testimony regarding “over 160 cases of misconduct and abuse of asylum applicants,” including physical and sexual abuse. [178] Reports and statements from former CBP agents illustrate a departmental reluctance to “hold agents and others within the agency accountable.” [179] Further, reports and images emerged in 2021 of “horse-mounted agents maneuvering their horses in a menacing way toward migrants, wielding lariats [whips], and using derogatory and xenophobic language” against primarily Haitian migrants, “including families with small children.” [180] ACLU tracking has documented at least 230 fatal encounters with CBP since the agency was created. [181] Finally, while President   Biden’s administration has attempted to limit deportations of people from the interior of the United States through an initial moratorium on deportations and subsequent “enforcement priorities” memos, [182] it has maintained programs that facilitate racial profiling in immigration enforcement such as the 287(g) program, Operation Stonegarden and the Secure Communities program, the 287(g) program is still widespread across the country. Through these programs, the Biden administration is partnering with xenophobic, anti-immigrant law enforcement agencies across the countries, including those with extensive records of civil rights violations. [183]

To address racial discrimination by law enforcement in border control and interior immigration enforcement:

• Federal, state, and local authorities should reduce their reliance on policing agencies and instead adopt a humanitarian approach to border reception and regulation, ensuring for example the primacy of human dignity, due process, family unity, non-discrimination, and the right to seek asylum.
• The US should immediately review, investigate, and remedy all internal and external allegations of abuse by government officials at the border or in an immigration detention facility and initiate an investigation of a pattern and practice of rights violations by CBP. In addition, the US government should immediately end immigration detention that is unnecessary or prolonged with the aim to gradually abolish immigration detention and should close any immigration detention facility in which persistent abuses are committed. [184]
• The US should end immigration programs that facilitate racial profiling, including the 287(g), Operation Stonegarden, and Secure Communities programs.

Racial Discrimination in the Regulation and Enforcement of Migration and Refugee Laws

ICERD protects non-citizens against discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent, and national or ethnic origin, regardless of whether they are lawfully admitted to the territory of a State Party . The text of the Convention does not explicitly prohibit differential treatment on the basis of citizenship, but the CERD has clearly stated that, “differential treatment on the basis of citizenship or immigration status will constitute discrimination” under the Convention “if the criteria for such differentiation . . . are not applied pursuant to a legitimate aim, and are not proportional to the achievement of this aim.” [185] Article 5 of ICERD further binds parties to eliminate discrimination and guarantee equality before the law in relation to several rights fundamental to non-citizens, including the right to equal treatment before tribunals, the right to freedom of movement within the borders of a state, and the right to leave any country, including one’s own. [186] Article 6 additionally requires States Parties to “assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies” for instances of discrimination; this extends to non-citizens as well as citizens. [187]

The United States has long acknowledged that “discrimination against immigrants” is one of the principal causative factors of the “subtle and elusive” forms of discrimination that “persist[s] in American society.” [188] Indeed, the United States’ combined first, second, and third report noted that there is a long history of “discriminatory provisions in US immigration law and policy,” dating to the 19th century. [189] Notwithstanding the passage of anti-discrimination laws protecting non-citizens in and since 1965, the government has confirmed that “recent immigrants often encounter discrimination in employment, education, and housing as a result of persistent racism and xenophobia.” [190] According to the United States, discrimination against non-citizens has not meaningfully abated or diminished since it became a party to ICERD; indeed, in its combined fourth, fifth, and sixth periodic reports, the United States noted an “increase in bias crimes and related discriminatory actions against persons perceived to be Muslim, or of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian descent.” [191] In its most recent report, the United States highlighted an additional threat from violent domestic extremists driven by “long-standing racial and ethnic tension, including opposition to immigration.” [192]

The CERD has made a series of recommendations about how the United States should more effectively protect non-citizens from discrimination. In 2014, the Committee called on the United States to ensure that the rights of non-citizens, “are fully guaranteed in law and in practice,” including by “abolishing ‘Operation Streamline’ [a program of mass criminal prosecution of migrants for unauthorized entry and reentry] and dealing with any breaches of immigration law through [a] civil, rather than criminal immigration system”; undertaking “thorough and individualized assessment concerning detention and deportation and guaranteeing access to legal representation in all immigration-related matters”; [193] reviewing “laws and regulations in order to protect migrant workers from exploitative and abusive working conditions”; and ratifying several International Labor Organization conventions. [194] As set out below, the US has failed to implement these recommendations and has both failed to protect migrants from prohibited discrimination and actively contributed to worsening of the discriminatory situation since last undergoing CERD review.

Multiple United States federal district courts have recently deemed the racist, xenophobic history of the US criminal reentry statute (one of two laws used in Operation Streamline) as relevant in analyzing the statute’s application; one judge dismissed criminal charges based on a finding that the law was originally “enacted with discriminatory purpose”–indeed, would not have been enacted absent racial animus–and “has a disparate impact on Latinx persons.” [195] Despite the CERD’s recommendation that the US regulate migration exclusively as a civil and not a criminal matter, the United States continues to prosecute criminal entry and reentry crimes under these laws. [196]

Naked xenophobia has been a major factor in US immigration policy since the last CERD review of the United States. Most significantly, former President Donald Trump actively promoted discrimination against migrants through a range of changes to US immigration law and policy, a number of which President Biden continues to enforce. [197] Ongoing and increased discriminatory treatment of non-citizens have taken the form of efforts to restrict access to the United States; disparate treatment of migrants in the custody of US immigration authorities and in conferring immigration benefits; and the mistreatment of non-citizens by US state and local governmental authorities.

Workplace protections under international human rights law apply to all workers, regardless of citizenship status. However, fear of retaliation, including deportation, causes many workers who are unauthorized, who have family members who are undocumented, or otherwise have tentative immigration status to hesitate to speak up in the workplace or report abusive employers and working conditions. [198] These fears therefore have a massive impact on Black and brown workers’ rights to fair pay and decent work conditions to the right to organize.

To address racial discrimination against migrants, the US should:

• Conduct a thorough review of all current immigration laws to determine racial or discriminatory motivations or effects. Repeal or reform immigration laws enacted to effectuate racial animus or those with a racially discriminatory impact. [199]
• Establish a mechanism providing full and effective reparation, proportional to the gravity of the violation and the harm suffered, to those who were subjected to discriminatory expulsion, family separation, prosecution and imprisonment, arbitrary detention, detention in inhumane conditions or other rights violations as a result of the racially discriminatory impact of US immigration laws.

Restrictions on Entry and Access to Territory

In the reporting period there have been three particularly significant policies imposing discriminatory restrictions on entry and access to territory. First, the “discriminatory bans” (often called the “Muslim bans”) on entry to the United States that first targeted “primarily Muslim countries” [200] and then “African countries.” [201] In January 2021, the United States officially acknowledged that there were “discriminatory bans” on entry to the United States, which had been implemented by former President Trump and rescinded by President Biden. Commentators have pointed to the way in which anti-Muslim animus long operated as a form of racial discrimination in the US immigration system, prior to these bans on entry. [202] While the current administration rescinded the “discriminatory bans,” the administration has failed to adequately remedy past discriminatory exclusions implemented under the policy and the ongoing consequences of the discriminatory order for migrants currently seeking to enter the US. [203]

Second, the “migrant protection protocols” (MPP) (also known as “Remain in Mexico”) policy forces migrants and asylum-seekers attempting to enter the United States at the US-Mexico land border to remain outside the US until an administrative proceeding is held to consider their status. [204] This results in harm in Mexico, heightened risk of refoulement to the country of origin and inadequate access to administrative proceedings including asylum hearings (in fact, in many instances, rulings by US immigration authorities occur in absentia, resulting in a denial of due process rights). [205] The MPP mostly affects those nationalities that Mexico refused to permit the US to expel under Title 42 (see below), including Central Americans, Cubans, Ecuadorians, and Venezuelans. Additionally, human rights reporting has established that migrants subjected to this policy face discriminatory treatment in Mexico. [206] This includes, for example, indigenous migrants who do not speak Spanish as their primary language and face mistreatment in Mexico. [207] While the Biden administration attempted to end this policy, a lawsuit brought by conservative governors in Texas and Mississippi forced the administration to reinstate it. [208] On June 30, 2022, the US Supreme Court–which did not review how the program exposed migrants to discrimination–held that the Biden Administration is able to end the program. [209]

The third discriminatory policy involves the expulsion of asylum-seekers who approach the southern land border under a dated public health directive codified at Title 42 of the US Code. Title 42, when applied in this manner, conflicts with the right to seek asylum set out in Title 8; nonetheless the government continues to use this public health law to expel asylum-seekers. [210] The United States has carried out over 1.2 million expulsions under Title 42, a practice that has disproportionately impacted Black, Indigenous, and Latinx asylum-seekers, particularly from Central America, Africa, and Haiti as these migrants typically cannot access visas to enter the US via air travel). [211] In one high-profile instance, after a large number of Haitian asylum-seekers arrived in Del Rio, Texas in September 2021, the Biden administration sent a series of Title 42 expulsion flights to Haiti, exposing well over 10,000 asylum-seekers to conditions the US government previously recognized as being too dangerous and precarious for safe return. [212] In 2021, CBP officers were videotaped whipping Haitian asylum-seekers from horseback. [213] The use of Title 42 denies vast numbers of asylum-seekers arriving at the border the opportunity to demonstrate their claim of persecution and/or challenge their refoulement. [214] Title 42 expulsions stand in stark contrast to the actions the Biden administration has taken to grant exemptions to the application of Title 42 for the (primarily white) people fleeing from Ukraine. [215] Aspects of Title 42 are being litigated in various cases and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that aspects of the policy are likely unlawful, although not on the basis of disparate or discriminatory impact. [216]

To address discriminatory restrictions on entry and access to territory, the US should:

• Ensure non-discriminatory access to US territory and to individual status determination procedures run by US officials with trauma-informed training in US asylum law and whose mission is humanitarian and not focused on border security.
• Repeal and replace orders, statutes, and regulations that have been used to exclude and/or expel migrants and asylum-seekers in a discriminatory manner.
• Publicly track and report data demonstrating the effect of border policies by race and ethnicity.

Border Enforcement, Detention, and the Granting of Immigration Benefits

In addition to border policies seeking to prevent migrants and asylum-seekers from ever setting foot in the United States, US immigration enforcement at the border and in the interior of the US has a disparate impact on the basis of race. This is caused in part by the failure of US constitutional interpretation to prohibit racial profiling in immigration enforcement and the continued reliance on racial profiling in border and national security enforcement. [217] It is also the product of the intersection between structural discrimination in the US criminal legal system and deportation law. One recent study, reviewing over 13,000 stops by law enforcement officials in the US State of Michigan, found clear evidence that CBP uses “racial profiling to target immigrants from Latin America and other people of color.” [218] As Arnulfo Gomez described in relation to one such stop, “there was no reason for us to have been pulled over just because of the color of our skin. Everything that happened to us was wrong. We were being targeted just because we are Hispanic.” [219]

Another recent study found that Black immigrants are more likely to be detained in connection with criminal convictions than the immigration population overall and ultimately more likely to be removed due to a criminal conviction, often despite having lived in the United States for long periods and having strong community ties. [220] Evidence demonstrates that the United States consistently returns Black and Latinx migrants to countries where they are at risk. [221]

Once apprehended, asylum-seekers and other migrants are subjected to prolonged and arbitrary immigration detention, often in abusive conditions and without adequate health care. Most migrants are also forced to navigate civil proceedings related to their status without legal representation. The United States operates the largest immigration detention system in the world. On a given day, tens of thousands of immigrants are detained on the basis of their status as a migrant. [222] US law mandates detention in many cases. [223] Myriad reports have documented the abysmal conditions to which immigration detainees are subjected. [224] Many detention facilities are operated by private corporations under contracts with the US government; approximately 80 percent of immigrant detainees are held in detention facilities owned or operated by private prison companies. [225] Research has shown that failures by ICE aggravated the risk of Covid-19 infections and that ICE transfers of detainees without prior testing effectively amplified contagion. [226] Detainees who have protested unsafe living conditions, including through the use of hunger strikes, have been subjected to retaliation, violence, and involuntary medical procedures, including force feeding and forced urinary catheterization. [227] While the US does not adequately make available relevant data disaggregated by race or ethnicity, Black and brown migrants are disparately impacted by the harms of immigration detention. While Black immigrants make up only 4.8% of detained immigrants facing deportation before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), they make up 17.4% of detained immigrants facing deportation before the EOIR on criminal grounds. [228] Data shows that ICE disproportionately places Black migrants in solitary confinement and subjects them to disproportionately long periods in detention. [229]

The US represented to CERD that it had made changes in response to the Committee’s 2014 recommendations regarding legal counsel and individualized status assessments, noting that ICE hired a “Legal Access Coordinator” who seeks to “enhance detained individuals’ access” to legal counsel. [230] The US, however, continues to constrain access to legal counsel for detained migrants, requiring them to “secure legal representation at their own expense, find pro bono representation,” or navigate the system alone. [231] Moreover, a recent report found that ICE systematically restricts the most basic modes of communication, such as in-person legal visits, telephones, and legal mail, that detained people need to use to connect with legal counsel. [232] The vast majority of detained immigrants are without counsel. [233] This is problematic not only because those detained are disproportionately Black and brown, but also because detained immigrants who have lawyers obtain relief from removal at a rate of more than ten times higher than those who do not. [234] Calls for universal representation have pointed out that provision of counsel can help eliminate bias and discrimination in the allocation of legal services. [235]

ICERD’s mandate that States Parties “take effective measures” to ensure that their policies accord with the treaty cannot be accomplished without accurate data. Unfortunately, the US government does not publish or collect adequate data about border deaths, distress calls, and other border enforcement actions, nor about immigration enforcement, detention, use of force incidents, removals, or DHS civil rights and civil liberties complaints or investigations. Such information should be collected and disaggregated by race, ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, gender, age, disability, and other criteria.

To address discrimination in border and immigration enforcement, the US should:

• Revise guidance on the use of racial profiling by federal law enforcement to eliminate the existing border and national security loopholes and prohibit discrimination based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, and English proficiency.
• Gradually abolish immigration detention.
• Repeal laws mandating detention and invest in community-based social services as alternatives to detention without furthering surveillance of immigrants as an alternative to detention.
• Establish, by statute or regulation, binding minimum standards for conditions of detention.
• Establish, by statute or regulation, access to government-provided counsel for all migrants in proceedings regarding their status as a migrant, and ensure timely and confidential access to in-person, telephone, and video conferencing as well as legal mail in detention.
• Publicly track and report data demonstrating the effect of immigration enforcement and benefits policies by race, ethnicity, and other disaggregated bases.
• Prioritize and facilitate country visits by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and provide unimpeded access to all places of detention.

Actions by State and Local Governments

Currently, one of the most high-profile areas of concern is immigration enforcement by certain US state and local governments. [236] In Texas, for example, the state governor claimed that the state is under threat from migrants “from countries you haven’t even heard of before” and has repeatedly used the rhetoric of “invasion.” [237] The state’s Operation Lone Star, just one part of anti-immigrant actions taken by the state, has aggressively used selective enforcement of the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass to justify the arrest and detention of thousands of alleged migrants in a newly created segregated criminal legal system with separate dockets, public defender assignments, jails, and booking facilities. [238] As of March 2022, Texas had deployed state troopers and mass-mobilized members of the National Guard, who made at least 208,000 arrests. [239] Affidavits of arresting officers reveal that arrests are based on racial and national origin profiling, repeatedly describing those arrested as “Hispanic” and “undocumented.” [240] These criminal proceedings have resulted in prolonged detention in egregious conditions; many cases have been dismissed for lack of probable cause. [241] Most recently, in an aggressive escalation of these policies, the state of Texas announced it would return those suspected of being migrants to the border , raising a host of legal concerns. [242]

To address racial discrimination at the border, US jurisdictions should:

• Expand the federal investigation into discriminatory treatment of non-citizens under Operation Lone Star to encompass Texas’ new EO authorizing state law enforcement officials target, arrest, and detain suspected migrants and transport them to the US-Mexico border.
• Issue guidance from DHS to its components affirming a policy of non-cooperation between DHS and the Operation Lone Star trespass arrest program.
• Take all measures, including litigation, to compel Texas to end Operation Lone Star and other discriminatory abuse of migrants.
• Immediately end federal funding for the agencies and counties engaged in the abusive Operation Lone Star border initiative, even as the Justice Department conducts an inquiry into the operation.

Racial Discrimination in Public Services and Social Protection

Article 5 of ICERD provides that “States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone” to economic and social rights, including protection against unemployment, the right to medical care, social security, social services, and education, and just conditions of work and equal pay for equal work. Article 2 of ICERD further requires concrete state action to eliminate disparities in economic rights. However, racial minorities in the United States continue to suffer a lack of economic security compared to their white counterparts.

The median wealth of white households in the United States is significantly higher than that of Black, Indigenous, or Latinx households. This so-called racial wealth gap [243] has grown since the country ratified ICERD, and the median wealth of white households is now at least ten-times that of the median Black household. [244] A disproportionate share of people who are Black, Indigenous, Latinx, or immigrants live under the poverty line. The poverty rates of Black and Latinx people are twice as high than among white people. [245]

US Census Bureau data from [246] September 2021 found that some 19 million adults lived in households with insufficient food and 11.9 million adults were behind on rent. [247] According to data from the US Department of Agriculture, 19.1% of Black households and 15.6% of Hispanic households experienced food insecurity in 2019, compared to 7.9% of white Americans. [248]

The Covid-19 pandemic has only deepened these sharp disparities. The impacts of the pandemic and the economic fallout have been widespread, but remain particularly prevalent among Blacks, Latinx, and other people of color. [249] Gaps in preparedness and response to the Covid-19 pandemic have disproportionately negatively burdened people of color, [250] which has deepened existing racial injustices in health care, [251] housing, [252] employment, [253] education, [254] and wealth accumulation. [255]

Over the course of the pandemic, poverty fell overall due in part to the stimulus checks and unemployment benefits received by many. [256] But the little progress made toward economic parity over the last year has stalled, as relief measures [257] implemented in response to Covid-19 have been reduced, ended, or struck down by the courts. Today, the Black-white wealth gap [258] is as big as it was in 1968. [259]

While the US has acknowledged these disparities, it has admitted to CERD that it has failed to invest sufficient resources to address them, leading to the persistence of deeply discriminatory health care, inadequate social safety nets, and segregated communities and schools.

Public Health during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Article 5 of ICERD provides that “States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms” in the right to “public health” and “medical care” [260] and provide equal access to healthcare services. [261] CERD has specifically mandated that states address the disproportionate impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on racial minorities. [262] Where there are persistent disparities, ICERD requires states to affirmatively adopt measures to address them.

The Committee has expressed concern over the failure of the US to address racial disparities in access to affordable health care, as many states have opted out of the Medicaid expansion program, excluding substantial numbers of racial minorities. In addition, the Committee expressed concern that many states have explicitly excluded migrants from health care. [263] In 2014, it recommended that the US “take concrete measures” to ensure individuals, “in particular racial and ethnic minorities who reside in states that have opted out of” the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and migrants have “access to affordable and adequate health-care services.” [264] CERD has recommended that the US eliminate steep racial disparities in sexual and reproductive health, collect data, and improve monitoring and accountability systems. [265] In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, CERD has made clear that States are obligated to “ensure equal access” to medical care. [266]

Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities continue to suffer profound disparities in rates of chronic health conditions, health outcomes, and access to quality health care. [267] For example, these communities are disproportionately impacted both by diabetes and its negative health outcomes, and are especially vulnerable to the harmful human rights impact of insulin prices in the US. [268] The Covid-19 pandemic has deepened existing racial injustices in health care [269] : minorities are more likely to suffer severe illness and die from Covid-19 [270] and face barriers to vaccine access. [271]

Black people suffer from particularly acute racial disparities in maternal mortality and cervical cancer rates. [272] The maternal mortality rate for Black women is three times higher than white women and rose further between 2019 and 2020, driven by significant increases in the maternal mortality rate of Black and Latinx women. [273] These deaths, and those from cervical cancer, are preventable. Indeed, in 2020, 194 countries committed to eliminating cervical cancer globally. [274] In the US, Black women are more likely than white women to have never been screened for cervical cancer, are diagnosed at a later stage, and have lower survival rates. [275] In the state of Alabama, Black women are nearly twice as likely to die of cervical cancer as white women. [276]

Given this crisis in maternal mortality and access to care for people of color, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn the constitutional right to access an abortion in Roe v. Wade and related decisions will have a particularly profound and deadly impact on people of color. [277] Black people have higher-risk pregnancies , are more than four times as likely to have had abortions as white pregnant people, are more likely to miscarry or have stillbirths compared to white pregnant people, [278] and are more likely to live in states that restrict abortions. [279]

Migrants also suffer from acute health disparities, and some have no access to health care at all. Although some local policies provide undocumented immigrants with health care, [280] the federal government continues to prevent undocumented and some legal immigrants from enrolling in ACA coverage and Medicaid. [281] The lack of access to adequate health care has exacerbated the effects of Covid-19 for immigrants, particularly undocumented populations in frontline jobs. [282]

State and federal prisons have failed to offer adequate health protection generally, and specifically against Covid-19. Covid-19 incidence and mortality rates were consistently higher among the prison population than the overall US population in the first year of the pandemic, and the cumulative toll of Covid-19 has been several times greater among the prison population than the overall US population. [283] The US’s response continues to be inadequate; in immigration detention centers, COVID-19 infections have increased by more than 940 percent since January 2022 , while ICE has only administered booster shots to 671 of the 22,000 people in ICE detention. [284] Given the rapid spread of the virus behind bars, and the racially disproportionate prison population, Black and Latinx people have been particularly vulnerable. [285] By May 2020, Black people accounted for 60% of Covid-19 deaths in the New York State prison system, despite comprising 48% of detainees. [286]

To eliminate racial disparities in public health, the US should:

• Improve the affordability and availability of health insurance for low- and middle-income earners. In particular, consider legislation to expand coverage for existing social protection programs like Medicaid and Medicare. In the absence of such legislation, Congress should take appropriate short-term remedial measures.
• Support community health workers and community-based approaches to reproductive health care that address healthcare access and the social determinants of health.
• Establish inclusivity policies that: support linguistic and racial diversity, including in federally qualified health clinics; and acknowledge, confront, and seek to remedy historic and current experiences of racial discrimination in public health, including by creating an official, confidential, and accessible complaint mechanism for patients who use federally qualified health facilities.

Inadequate Social Safety Net

ICERD requires states to guarantee the rights to social security and social services without distinction as to race, [287] and the Committee has made clear that States are obligated to eliminate all forms of racial inequities, whether intentional or not. [288] Despite these protections, Black and Latinx people continue to face underinvestment in social protection, which has contributed to profound disparities in poverty and economic security. While, in the past, America’s public benefits system helped reduce and prevent poverty and racial disparities by providing basic economic, food, childcare, and housing support, thereby preventing the intergenerational transmission of poverty, it has weakened substantially over the past decades. [289]

The inadequate support system has been driven by racial animus, [290] community violence, [291] and discriminatory government policies based on racist stereotypes [292] as well as federal delegation to states. [293] Although most safety net programs are federally funded, state control over program design, rules, and benefit levels has resulted in inconsistent protection and racial inequalities. Similar to problematic aspects of the Medicaid provision, [294] US regions with larger populations of color have weaker safety nets and higher rates of economic hardship. [295] For example, workers of color have higher unemployment rates and also are more likely to reside in states with weaker unemployment insurance systems and other safety net programs. [296]

The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the economic disparities and underlying conditions driving these inequalities, as Black and Latinx communities have experienced more job losses (and ensuing loss of health insurance), higher rates of infection and mortality, and greater likelihood of evictions and hunger than their white counterparts. [297] Similarly, women are disproportionately impacted by the economic fallout of Covid-19 [298] For example, 40.8 percent of Black, non-Hispanic women and 44.6 percent of Latinas faced housing insecurity in mid-July 2020 compared to 15.4 percent of white, non-Hispanic men. These rates were higher for households with children (45.2 percent for Black, non-Hispanic women with children and 48.8 percent for Latinas with children). In addition, in April 2020, less than half of the adult Black population was employed and the Black and white unemployment gap widened to 5.3 percentage points. [299] Only 36 percent of households earning under $50,000 that lost jobs received unemployment benefits. [300] Women, especially women of color, have disproportionately suffered from pandemic job losses. [301] As of late 2020, Black women’s employment fell 18.2 percent from its peak compared with 16.7 percent for white women. In September 2020, white women’s employment recovered while Black women’s employment remained low. Latina women have also experienced dramatic employment and labor force declines.

Although the US issued stimulus checks and other relief, these measures could not repair the social safety net shredded by decades of budget cuts and draconian rules. [302] In addition, there were racial disparities in the provision of the Coronavirus Aid Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act economic impact payments. [303] Undocumented immigrants were also largely left without relief during the pandemic as they and other immigrants were ineligible for pandemic-related stimulus checks, temporary family assistance (TANF), and food stamp s. [304] Many immigrants eligible for unemployment relief were effectively denied relief because many states failed to translate application forms and other essential documents. [305] Child poverty increased by 41 percent within a month after the US let its expanded child tax credit expire at the end of 2021, pushing 3.7 million more children into poverty. Black and Latinx children experienced the highest percentage point increases in poverty, 5.9 percent and 7.1 percent respectively. [306]

Without effective social safety nets, families are also at risk of lengthy separation. Nationally, more than 75 percent of child welfare cases involve neglect, which occurs when a parent or caregiver fails to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or supervision to a child. [307] Instead of assisting families by providing cash, food, housing, or childcare assistance, the US child welfare system uses indicators of poverty as bases for removing children from families while subsidizing and incentivizing foster care and adoption under the pretext of acting in the child’s best interest. Due to systemic racism and other factors, this disproportionately impacts families of color.

To eliminate racial discrimination in the social safety net, the US should:

• Increase benefit levels for social assistance and social insurance programs, including cash or in-kind assistance, including relevant tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, to ensure benefit adequacy, and consider adopting a universal income security program, such as a universal basic income.
• Create federal standards optimizing eligibility for safety net programs. Where existing means-tested social assistance and insurance programs are not expanded universally, improve their eligibility requirements and accessibility. Means-tested programs should not include eligibility requirements that can unfairly exclude those in need, such as strict asset tests, or certain behavioral requirements like drug tests or work requirements.
• Review and amend the current models used to create the annual Federal Poverty Guidelines to ensure that they are effectively capturing populations facing poverty.
• Eliminate all benefit eligibility criteria for social protection programs tied to immigration status or criminal history.
• Desist from using indicators of poverty as a basis for child removals, prolonged family separation, and termination of parental rights.
• Create a federally funded system for paid family and medical leave.
• Enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against agencies that do not provide language access services or discriminate in the provision of benefits to minorities.

US Education Policy

Article 2(2) of ICERD provides that States Parties shall take “special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups … , for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” [308] Quality education is central to the enjoyment of basic rights such as job procurement and political participation. [309] The CERD has underscored that barriers in education “results in the transmission of poverty from generation to generation” for people of African descent. [310]

Discrimination and segregation in the education sector remain rampant across the US, driving inequality in education and in life opportunities. [311] Although the population is increasingly diverse, racial segregation in US schools is higher now than it has been in decades. [312] Majority-minority schools continue to be underfunded and fail to provide adequate educational opportunities to minority students. [313] US schools are primarily funded by neighborhood-specific property taxes, meaning that schools in poorer neighborhoods generate and receive less funding and resources than those in wealthier neighborhoods with higher property values. [314] Racial disparities in education’s connection to US property tax policies built in part on racial discrimination, racial segregation, and the legacies of slavery has been widely recognized, including by some US courts. [315] Poor conditions in these schools–such as “missing or unqualified teachers, physically dangerous facilities, and inadequate books and materials”–correlate with lower student performance and low literacy rates, hampering minority individuals’ ability to participate equally in democratic society. [316]

In its 2008 and 2014 concluding observations addressed to the US, the CERD expressed concern about racial segregation in public schools, finding that prohibition of the use of race-conscious measures as a tool to promote integration inhibited progress. [317] The Committee found that students from racial and ethnic minorities attend segregated schools with unequal facilities, noting that even when students of color attend racially diverse schools, they are often relegated to “single race” classes, denied access to advanced courses, and unfairly disciplined. [318] The Committee recommended that the US undertake a study to examine the reasons underlying de facto racial segregation, and “adopt all appropriate measures” to reduce the achievement gap between white and Black students “by improving the quality of education provided to [Black] students.” [319] In 2014, the Committee recommended that the US intensify its efforts to ensure equal access to education by taking measures including developing a concrete plan with goals and timelines to address racial segregation in schools and neighborhoods, and increasing federal funding for programs promoting racially integrated learning environments for students. [320]

In its 2021 report to the CERD, the US made a number of claims regarding its efforts to promote diversity and equal opportunity in education, [321] including 2021 American Rescue Plan’s funding [322] and other legislation, [323] as well as efforts by the Justice Department Civil Rights Division [324] and the Department of Education (DOE). [325] Nonetheless, the racial disparities in educational opportunities among students resulting from ongoing ICERD violations remain persistently and disturbingly high.

The CERD has recommended that measures be taken to reduce the school dropout and suspension rates for children of African descent. [326] In its 2008 concluding observations, the Committee highlighted racial disparities in suspension and expulsion rates as exacerbating high dropout rates, as well as high rates of referrals of minority youth to the justice system. [327] The Committee expressed particular concern about school districts’ use of “zero tolerance” school discipline policies and recommended that districts review these policies and seriously consider limiting suspensions and expulsions to the most serious cases of school misconduct, and recommended special training for school officers. [328]

Nevertheless, disproportionate numbers of students of color continue to enter the criminal legal system. Schools with high populations of racial minority students have higher rates of suspension and expulsion, and students of color are more likely to be arrested as adults. [329] In addition, students of color face discriminatory discipline and criminalization . [330] Black students are punished more frequently and harshly in all categories of school discipline , even though many schools have removed the term “zero tolerance” from their policies, driven in part by differential treatment and support at school by race. [331] A June 2021 report from the US Department of Education found that Black students are removed from school by being suspended or expelled (long term removal), and are referred to law enforcement at rates that are more than twice their share of enrollment . [332] Students of color are more likely to go to a school with a law enforcement officer, more likely to be referred to law enforcement, and more likely to be arrested at school. [333] In addition, students who attend schools with high percentages of Black students and students from low-income families are more likely face security measures like metal detectors, random “contraband” sweeps, security guards, and security cameras, even when controlling for the level of misconduct in schools or violence in school neighborhoods. [334]

Article 7 of ICERD requires states to adopt immediate and effective measures, specifically in teaching, education, culture, and information, to promote tolerance and combat prejudice against national, racial, and ethnic groups. To combat prejudice and intolerance, the CERD has urged States to develop campaigns to educate the public about the history and culture of people of African descent and the importance of building an inclusive society. [335] The Committee has also urged affirmative efforts to ensure that textbooks contain “chapters about the history and cultures of peoples of African descent,” and to “encourage and support the publication and distribution of books and other print materials, as well as the broadcasting of television and radio programs about their history and cultures.” [336]

The US has failed to implement these recommendations. [337] There are no federal requirements or standards for teaching the history or racial discrimination in the US or about the history and cultures of Black Americans and other people of color, and only a handful of states mandate that such history be taught. [338] Even where mandates exist, each US state may teach in a way that leads to historical inaccuracies. [339] In the absence of any federal mandate, multiple states have introduced and enacted laws prohibiting schools from teaching about the reality of racism by banning “divisive concepts relating to race, racism and other topics.” [340] Learning Black history is beneficial to all students: While enhancing the self-esteem of Black students, it conveys historical realities to all students and encourages empathy, understanding, and efforts to avoid repeating the racist violence of the past. [341] Further, denying the historical and contemporary realities of racial discrimination impedes not only justice and accountability for historic wrongs, but the eradication of persisting structures of racial inequality that is the core purpose of ICERD.

To address discrimination in the US education system, the US should:

• Invest in underfunded schools to equalize public school funding throughout the US and continue to provide increased supplemental nutrition benefits for families with children during summer months when free or reduced-price school meals are not available.
• Expand access to free, quality pre-primary education.
• Expand the benefits of Pell Grants for low- and middle-income tertiary education students.
• Adopt a federal national standard mandating the teaching of the colonization, including   forced displacement, dispossession, and mass killings of Indigenous peoples; the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, redlining, and segregation; civil rights movements; and other racial justice civil and labor rights movements.
• The Justice Department and Education Department should enforce Title VI and relevant statutes to ensure non-discrimination in the implementation of such a national standard, and in particular, prohibit school districts or states from banning Critical Race Theory or from teaching about other forms of racial discrimination.

Acknowledgements

This report honors the legacy of Aryeh Neier, president emeritus of the Open Society Foundations, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Aryeh Neier Fellowship at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Human Rights Watch. As executive director of the ACLU and then of Human Rights Watch, Neier helped develop both organizations into powerful forces for justice and human rights. Every former Aryeh Neier Fellow (Anjana Malhotra, 2003-2005; Mie Lewis, 2005-2007; Alice Farmer, 2007-2009; Sarah Mehta, 2009-2011; Ian M. Kysel, 2011-2013; G. Alex Sinha, 2013-2015; Tess Borden, 2015-2017; jasmine Sankofa, 2017-2019; Allison Frankel, 2019-2021) contributed in some way to the conceptualization of this project. This report was primarily authored by Anjana Malhotra, Ian M. Kysel, G. Alex Sinha, jasmine Sankofa, and Allison Frankel.

This report was edited by Alison Parker for Human Rights Watch and Jamil Dakwar for the ACLU. Jennifer Turner, Jonathan Blazer, Maribel Hernandez Rivera, Udi Ofer, Brandon Buskey, Carl Takei, Naureen Shah, Eunice Cho, Anu Joshi, ReNika Moore, Sarah Hinger, Harold Jordan, and David Fathi also provided a review of the report for the ACLU. Joe Saunders and James Ross provided program and legal review, respectively, for Human Rights Watch. Matt McConnell, Hina Naveed, Margaret Wurth, Annerieke Smaak Daniel, Amanda Klasing, Ari Sawyer, John Raphling, Laura Pitter, Dreisen Heath, Bill Frelick, Sarah Holewinski, and Brian Root also reviewed for Human Rights Watch. Rachel Levine and Thomas J. Rachko, Jr. prepared this report for publication.

We are also grateful for the University of Chicago Law School Global Human Rights Clinic for scoping research that contributed to the framing of the report.  

Related Content

Us: dismantle structures of racism now.

UN Review of US Record on Racial Justice Should Prompt White House Action

• United States
• Criminal Justice
• Economic Justice
• Racial Justice
• Refugees and Migrants

Protecting Rights, Saving Lives

Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in close to 100 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice

• Marketplace
• Marketplace Morning Report
• Marketplace Tech
• Make Me Smart
• This is Uncomfortable
• The Uncertain Hour
• How We Survive
• Financially Inclined
• Million Bazillion
• Marketplace Minute®
• Corner Office from Marketplace

• Latest Stories
• Collections
• Smart Speaker Skills
• Corrections
• Ethics Policy
• Submissions
• Individuals
• Corporate Sponsorship
• Foundations

New research shows racial discrimination in hiring is still happening at the earliest stages

Share Now on:

• https://www.marketplace.org/2021/08/03/new-research-shows-racial-discrimination-in-hiring-is-still-happening-at-the-earliest-stages/ COPY THE LINK

HTML EMBED:

A new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that systemic racial discrimination during the job application process is still happening.

Researchers sent more than 80,000 fake job applications for entry-level openings to Fortune 500 firms and found that, on average, applications with distinctively Black names were about 10% less likely to get a call back than comparable applications with distinctively white names.

A significant portion of the hiring discrimination documented in the study was associated with a small portion of the 108 companies, according to Evan Rose , a Saieh Family Research Fellow at the University of Chicago and a co-author of the study.

“We find that the top 20% of the firms that we studied here explained about half of the total discrimination against Black applicants in our study,” Rose said during an interview with “Marketplace Morning Report’s” David Brancaccio. “That’s heavily concentrated in a small share of employers.”

Below is an edited transcript of Rose’s conversation with Brancaccio, with details on which sectors are seeing hiring discrimination, how bias also targets gendered names and more.

David Brancaccio: How many of these fake applications did your team send out?

Evan Rose: By the end, we’d sent about 84,000 applications to about 100 large U.S. employers. So you can think about it as sending a pair of resumes where everything on the resumes was equivalent, their job experience or education but one resume might have a name like Emily or Greg, and another resume might have a name like Leticia or Jamal, and we measure how much less likely is the employer to call back the Leticia or Jamal than the Emily or Greg, as well as, by the way, the difference in callback rates between Emilys and Gregs. So this way, we can try to measure both race and gender discrimination, signaling those characteristics to the employers with these distinctive first names.

Brancaccio: And when all was said and done, you found evidence of what many would call systemic discrimination?

Rose: Yeah, that’s right. So on average, there’s a penalty that’s pretty meaningful, about 10%, to applying to a job with a distinctively Black name. But what’s really interesting is that we find that that penalty varies tremendously across the 100 or so large U.S. employers in our study. And in fact, we find that the top 20% of the firms that we studied here explained about half of the total discrimination against Black applicants in our study. That’s heavily concentrated in a small share of employers. And that’s actually even more true for gender, where, on average, we find no difference in the contact rates for distinctively male and female names. But we find that masks a bunch of between-firm differences. Some firms have very strong preference to call back the male names. Other firms have quite strong preference to call back the female names. So gender discrimination is also highly concentrated in a small share of firms.

Brancaccio: And just so we rest on this just for another moment, so people didn’t miss it, the worst actors, according to your data, account for a whole lot of the problem.

Rose: Absolutely, yes, it’s this top quintile of firms, this relatively small share of firms that explain the bulk of the discrimination that we measure in the experiment. And these are, again, large U.S. employers. You know and love them, at least I shop with them regularly. And unfortunately, it seems that there’s widespread patterns of discrimination across their establishments. And one thing we show in the paper is that, in fact, it looks like at least 20% of the actual jobs that we applied to at these firms are discriminating on the basis of race. So, it’s absolutely what the EEOC, or the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], would call a systemic pattern or practice of discrimination.

Brancaccio: So I’m on the edge of my seat here. Name some names. Who’s doing poorly, who’s doing well?

Rose: So we’re thinking about what to do with the identities of those firms. But we want to make sure that we go through academic peer review, engage with our partners in the civil rights community and government to try to make sure we can do the most good with this information.

Brancaccio: All right, so you’re thinking about it. That’s a process. Are you gonna tell the worst-offending companies?

Rose: That’s a possibility. We could be sharing this information directly with the public or with the government or with firms themselves. But again, you know, I think that’s sort of step two – step one here in this research was just figuring out this basic scientific question of whether or not firms matter at all. And our answer to that is definitely yes. And now you’re right. And we’re excited to think about what you could do with the actual information on specific companies’ discrimination.

Brancaccio : Are you seeing patterns in terms of industry, like certain types of companies are doing better or worse?

Rose : Yeah, industry turns out to be quite important and much more important than other factors that we thought might matter, like geography and job title. Interestingly, firms in the auto sector – firms that both sell cars and sell car parts – many of the firms we studied in those sectors exhibit very large race gaps, as well as firms in sort of more general retail and food services. Firms in engineering services, health services and accommodation, interestingly, seem to discriminate much less on the basis of race. And for gender, what we find is that the industry patterns are again very strong and sort of correspond closely to what you might think of as more stereotypically gendered industries. So in heavy industries, like wholesale durables, and construction materials, firms seem to have a preference to call back our male applicants. In apparel, we see a very strong preference to call back our female applicants. So there’s a strong industry skew there as well.

Brancaccio : Is it your hope that this type of data could be used to quell this form of discrimination?

Rose : Yeah, I mean, what we’re showing here is that the identity of the firm matters, and even within an industry like the auto sector, some firms seem to exhibit much more or much less discrimination than others. And that suggests to us that firm policies, practices, structure [and] organization could potentially matter. And if we started looking more closely at what these firms are doing differently, you know, we might be able to identify some of those policies and practices that could help prevent or remedy this kind of discrimination in the future.

Stories You Might Like

How does age discrimination affect the economy?

Biden administration says it will address racial inequity in home appraisals

To narrow racial wealth gap, Biden plan takes aim at home appraisal inequality

When it comes to the racial wealth gap, home appraisals are part of the problem

Black farmers’ lawsuit points to limited remedies for past discrimination

States expand bans on asking job applicants for salary history

There’s a lot happening in the world.  Through it all, Marketplace is here for you.  

You rely on Marketplace to break down the world’s events and tell you how it affects you in a fact-based, approachable way. We rely on your financial support to keep making that possible.  

Your donation today powers the independent journalism that you rely on . For just $5/month, you can help sustain Marketplace so we can keep reporting on the things that matter to you.  

Also Included in

• Housing discrimination
• Job applications
• Racial discrimination

Latest Episodes From Our Shows

Why investment in public pools took a dive

At Dollar General, sales of "consumable" goods are up. But profits are down.

Why are there so many adult retailers off of highways?

This is how an Olympian makes money between Games

• Skip to content
• Skip to search

On 22 March 2024, the NSW Parliament passed a bill that bans LGBTQ+ conversion practices. The bill will take effect in 2025. Find out more .

Race discrimination case studies

Employment .

November 2022: Michael is chinese and was asked by his supervisor how to pronounce an Asian surname.

April 2021: Ben* is an Aboriginal man and was working as a casual trainer for a gym.

June 2022: Aaliyah* is a young woman of Palestinian decent.

February 2018: Craig* is an Aboriginal man and worked as a bartender and courtesy bus driver for a registered club.

April 2022: Yousef* is Muslim and has a Palestinian background.

March 2017: Alice* worked as an Aboriginal Liaison Officer.

September 2022: Mandeep* is Sikh.

September 2014: Wang Wei* is a student.

Goods and services

August 2024: Raj* and his partner are of Indian background. They attended a five-star restaurant.

June 2022: John*, a Caucasian man, went to a bank to open a new savings account.

June 2020: Haoran* and Kai* were denied entry to a hotel by a security guard.

May 2024: Sally* is an Aboriginal woman who attended a Sorry Business function in a regional club.

February 2022: Amara* resides in NSW on an Australian visa.

December 2016: Isaac* is a Maori man and a regular drinker at his local hotel.

July 2022: Jasmine* is of Pacific Islander descent and regularly makes large purchases of groceries for her family.

June 2021: Hung* is an Asian man.

Accommodation

June 2024: Amanda* is an Aboriginal woman.

June 2021: Samuel* is an Aboriginal man.

June 2024: Rob* is an Aboriginal man and the father of three school age children.

October 2016: Lilly* is an Aboriginal woman.

June 2024: Sarah* is an Aboriginal woman and a single parent.

December 2014: Daniel* is an Aboriginal man.

Registered clubs 

July 2018: Niu* is a Polynesian-Australian woman.

March 2015: Amy* is an Aboriginal woman.

Find help and support

Sign up to our newsletter.

We acknowledge Aboriginal people as the First Nations Peoples of NSW and pay our respects to Elders past, present and future. We acknowledge the ongoing connection Aboriginal people have to this land and recognise Aboriginal people as the original custodians of this land.

• Reports and submissions
• News and media

Social media

• Facebook Anti-Discrimination NSW
• LinkedIn Anti-Discrimination NSW
• Fact sheets
• Equal Time newsletter
• Online community reporting tool
• Lodge a complaint
• Find legal advice
• Community languages
• Service Complaints
• Website accessibility
• Copyright and disclaimer
• Social media: Terms of use
• Copyright ©

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

Case Summaries

Beneath the title of each case summary below are links that connect to lists of similar cases sorted by topic areas relevant to each case by protected class . Links within each case summary connect to important case documents including complaints, briefs, settlement agreements, consent decrees, orders, and press releases.

On March 18, 2004, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Section moved to intervene in A.B. v. Rhinebeck Central School District and Thomas Mawhinney , a sexual harassment case brought against the Rhinebeck Central School District and the former high school principal Thomas Mawhinney. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 9, 2003, by four current and former high school students and a school employee. The plaintiffs alleged that the school district and Mawhinney violated state and federal laws, including Title IX. The United States filed an intervention brief and complaint-in-intervention alleging that Mawhinney sexually harassed the four plaintiff students as well as other female high school students during his ten-year tenure as principal and that the school district violated Title IX by acting with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment of these students. The district opposed the United States' intervention, and the United States filed a reply . On August 25, 2004, the court granted the United States' intervention motion.

On March 22, 2006, the court approved a consent decree that requires the district to develop and implement a comprehensive plan that will ensure a discrimination-free educational environment for all students. The district must retain an expert regarding sexual harassment training and prevention to assist in developing the comprehensive plan, to evaluate the district's sexual harassment policies, to conduct a school climate assessment, and to develop a mandatory training program. The consent decree also requires the district to educate school board members and employees regarding how to respond to sexual harassment complaints. Lastly, the district must pay $152,500 to compensate the student victims and to pay their attorney's fees. On December 9, 2009, the parties informed the court that the case could be closed based on the district's implementation of the consent order.

On October 3, 2018, the Section and the District of Colorado U.S. Attorney’s Office (collectively the “United States”) entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement with the Adams 12 Five Star Schools (“the District”) in Colorado to bring the District’s English Learner (EL) program into compliance with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). This is the United States’ second settlement agreement with the District. The first settlement agreement was reached in 2010 and aimed to resolve numerous EEOA violations that the Section had identified during a compliance review of all the District’s English Learner (“EL”) programs and practices. This 2010 agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: ensure timely, adequate and appropriate EL services; train EL teachers and administrators; recruit and hire qualified staff for EL students; provide translation services for parents and guardians; ensure EL students are appropriately evaluated for special education and receive dual services when eligible; provide adequate and appropriate materials for EL classes; monitor current and exited EL students; and evaluate its EL programs adequately. The Section ended its monitoring of the 2010 agreement in 2015.

In 2016, the United States began conducting a complaint investigation to determine whether the District was appropriately serving its approximately 5,600 EL students as required by Section 1703(f) of the EEOA. The second settlement agreement addresses the narrower set of conditions that the United States identified as noncompliant with the EEOA in 2018. The 2018 agreement requires the District to: provide adequate language services to all EL students; provide EL students with appropriate access to core content through sheltered instruction; adequately train the administrators and teachers who provide language services and implement the EL program, including on how to use its curricula for EL students; adequately monitor the academic performance of current and former EL students; and properly evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  The parties anticipate that the 2018 agreement will remain in place for three years.

This desegregation case involves the Longview Independent School District ("LISD") in Longview, Texas, which was ordered by the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to desegregate on August 27, 1970. On January 24, 2011, as part of a district-wide consolidation plan, the court approved a consent order adopting LISD's revised attendance zones. On February 28, 2014, the court declared that LISD was partially unitary and had eliminated all vestiges of past de jure discrimination to the extent practicable in its facilities, transportation, extracurricular activities, and staff assignment. Following a comprehensive review of the school district's policies and practices, and subsequent negotiations, on December 22, 2014, the court approved the parties' proposed consent order. The Section is monitoring the district's compliance with this consent order, which requires LISD to publicize and broadly disseminate the application and assessment procedures it uses to admit students to the Hudson PEP Elementary School magnet program; permit and facilitate majority-to-minority transfers between certain schools; provide equal access to pre-advanced placement courses at its middle schools; and publicize and broadly disseminate its gifted-and-talented program admission procedures.

On October 12, 2022, the United States issued its Letter of Findings alleging the State of Alabama is violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Based on our investigation, we concluded the State of Alabama discriminates against students with emotional and behavioral disabilities in the foster care system who have been enrolled at on-site schools on the campuses of Alabama’s psychiatric residential treatment facilities.  By enrolling students at the on-site schools without regard to each student’s ability to perform in local public schools, the State’s practices relegate them to unnecessarily segregated classes and unequal educational opportunities.  During our investigation, we found these on-site schools differ in many and substantial ways from general education schools, including in their physical attributes, the multi-grade composition of the classes, their heavy reliance on online programs in classrooms without certified staff, and an overall and profound lack of resources.  The on-site schools also lack grade-appropriate curricula; provide insufficient instructional services and supports, including through the use of shortened school days; and are often unable to provide students with access to facilities that are common in general education settings, such as libraries, gyms, and science labs, or opportunities to participate in sports and extracurricular activities. For more information, please see the press release .    

In this matter involving the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s (PDE) system of alternative education programs, known as Alternative Education for Disruptive Youth (AEDY), the Section conducted an investigation into complaints that Pennsylvania’s statewide system of alternative education discriminated against students with disabilities in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as English Language Learners (EL) students in violation of Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  On March 25, 2019 , the Section along with the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Western, Middle, and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania entered into a settlement agreement with PDE .  The settlement agreement requires that PDE monitor the AEDY system to ensure that students with disabilities are not placed in AEDY in a manner that discriminates based on disability; that they are not unnecessarily segregated within AEDY programs on the basis of disability; that they are not denied equal educational opportunities; and that students with disabilities are transferred back to their home schools in a timely manner.  In addition, the agreement will require all local educational agencies referring EL students to AEDY to establish an EL service plan to ensure EL students are provided appropriate services.  Further, PDE will ensure that AEDY programs provide EL services by utilizing teachers who hold ESL teaching credentials and by using appropriate materials. The United States will monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.  For more information, please see this press release .

On February 16, 2023, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Anchorage School District in Anchorage, Alaska to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the district engaged in improper restraint and seclusion practices in its specialized schools and programs for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Under the settlement agreement, the district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other things: prohibit the use of seclusion; limit the use of restraint; document and review all instances of restraint and ensure they were justified; hire a district-level administrator to review incidents and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA; create classroom-wide behavior management plans to discourage restraint and promote positive behaviors; revise its complaint form to ensure it can receive complaints related to restraint and seclusion; provide training and professional development for all teachers and instructional staff at its schools and programs for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities; notify parents and guardians of all instances of restraint and seclusion; and offer compensatory counseling or education services to students with disabilities who were subjected to the district’s discriminatory practices. For more information, please see this letter , press release , and summary of the agreement .

In this longstanding school desegregation case, the Section and a class of black plaintiffs opposed the school district's proposal, among other things, to build five new schools. The Section contended that the district's proposal would not further desegregation of the district's schools, would not afford black students equal educational opportunities, and would impose disproportionate transportation burdens on black students. The school district's transportation records showed, for example, that some black high-school students were required to ride a bus up to nearly two and one-half hours each way to and from school, while white students were bussed no longer than forty-five minutes to and from the same school; nonetheless, the school district proposed to build a new high school at a location that would reduce the transportation times of white students while maintaining the transportation times of black students. The Section also alleged that the school district had failed to comply with existing desegregation orders in the areas of faculty and staff hiring, assignment and compensation; transportation; facilities; and curriculum.

After a seven-day evidentiary trial in May 1999, the district court issued an order approving the school district's construction plan, but requiring the school district to address several of the matters about which we had complained. Among other things, the district court ordered the school district to take steps to reduce the transportation times to school for black students. The Section and the plaintiff class appealed from the district court's order relating to new construction. At the request of the Section and the plaintiff class, the district court entered an order "staying," or putting on hold, the school district's proposed new construction, pending a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into settlement discussions. In April 2000 the parties signed and the district court approved a consent order that both required the school district to address areas of its alleged non-compliance with federal law and resolved all but one of the issues on appeal. The remaining issue on appeal was whether the school district's proposed site for a new high school was consistent with the district's affirmative desegregation obligations. On November 6, 2000, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that allowed construction of the new high school to proceed at the contested location. In December 2000, the district court entered an order establishing a bi-racial advisory committee.

On August 5, 1965, the private plaintiffs brought this school desegregation case to enjoin the Monroe City School District from continuing to operate racially segregated schools.  The United States joined the case as amicus curiae in 1970 and intervened in the lawsuit in 1978.  On July 6, 1992, the Court declared the District unitary with respect to facilities, extracurricular activities, and “the hiring and retention of black teachers and administrators.”  However, the Court declined to declare the District unitary with regard to “teacher and principal assignments, student assignments and transportation.”  On March 30, 2010, the Court ordered the District to “offer the same courses at every high school in the District;” fully implement a medical magnet program at Carroll High School by the fall of the 2011-12 school year (in an attempt to increase the diversity of the student population at Carroll High); encourage each high school student “to attempt to qualify for the Tuition Opportunity Program for Students (TOPS), which provides scholarships for qualified high school students who choose to attend a Louisiana state college or university;” “work with the Equity Assistance Center for the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) in order to ensure that all students have an equitable opportunity to participate in Gifted, Honors, pre-AP, and AP programming at all schools in the District;” and ensure that all principals, other administrators, faculty and certified staff are informed of the terms of the Court’s order.  On September 25, 2015, the Court declared the District unitary with respect to student assignment and transportation, but declined to pronounce the District unitary as to teacher and principal assignments.  In addition, the Court found that the District had not complied with the March 30, 2010 Consent Decree.  On December 11, 2015, the Court entered a Consent Decree designed to remedy teacher and principal assignment and course offerings.  Among other actions, the board must take steps to equalize course offerings and ensure that the racial makeup and credentials of the teachers and administrators at any given school does not indicate that a school is intended for black students or white students.  On March 23, 2016, in the interest of securing full compliance with the letter and spirit of the December 2015 Consent Decree, the United States and the District jointly filed a motion for the extension of certain deadlines therein.  The Court granted the motion and entered an Amended Consent Decree on March 24, 2016.  On April 14, 2016, the Court entered a Second Amended Consent Decree .

On July 24, 2013, the Section and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights entered into a resolution agreement with the Arcadia Unified School District in Arcadia, Calif., to resolve an investigation into allegations of discrimination against a transgender student based on the student's sex. Under the agreement, the school district will take a number of steps to ensure that the student, whose gender identity is male and who has consistently and uniformly presented as a boy at school and in all other aspects of his life for several years, will be treated like other male students while attending school in the district. The agreement resolves a complaint filed in October 2011. As detailed in the closure letter sent to the district, the complaint alleged that the district had prohibited the student from accessing facilities consistent with his male gender identity at school and on a school-sponsored overnight trip because he is transgender. The United States investigated this complaint under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both Title IX and Title IV prohibit discrimination against students based on sex. Under the agreement, the district will work with a consultant to support and assist the district in creating a safe, nondiscriminatory learning environment for students who are transgender or do not conform to gender stereotypes; amend its policies and procedures to reflect that gender-based discrimination, including discrimination based on a student's gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity with gender stereotypes, is a form of discrimination based on sex; and train administrators and faculty on preventing gender-based discrimination and creating a nondiscriminatory school environment for transgender students. Additionally, the district will take a number of steps to treat the student like all other male students in the education programs and activities offered by the district. The district-wide provisions of the agreement will be in place until the end of the 2015-2016 school year. The student-specific provisions of the agreement will be in place as long as the student is enrolled in the district. For more information, please see this press release .

On July 23, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the South District of Texas in Arnold v. Barbers Hill Independent School District .  In this case, the District disciplined two black boys when they refused to cut their locs to conform to the District’s hair length policy.  Because similarly situated girls would not have been in violation of the District’s policy, the boys and their parents brought suit, alleging that the hair length policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex (among other bases) in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  Plaintiffs further allege that the District retaliated against one of the parents in violation of Title IX.  On June 21, 2021, the District filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal, arguing primarily that Fifth Circuit precedent establishes a per se rule barring judicial review of all school hair length regulations and that a parent lacks standing to bring a Title IX retaliation claim.  In its statement of interest, the United States advises the court that there is no binding Fifth Circuit precedent barring review of plaintiffs’ sex-based challenges to the District’s hair length policy.  The United States further advises that Title IX applies to all aspects of a federal funding recipient’s education programs and activities, including its dress and grooming code, and that parents of minor schoolchildren have standing to bring Title IX retaliation claims.  Applying the proper Equal Protection Clause and Title IX standards, the United States concludes that plaintiffs adequately allege that the District’s hair length policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, and that the District unlawfully retaliated against a parent who complained about the hair length policy’s discriminatory effect.  For this reason, the United States asserts that the District’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ sex discrimination claims should be denied. 

On January 28, 1975, Mississippi was sued for maintaining an unconstitutional dual system of higher education. Plaintiffs argued that Mississippi denied equal opportunities to black students and faculty members by favoring the State's historically white colleges and universities at the expense of its historically black colleges and universities, and by failing to remove the vestiges of racial segregation in the former de jure dual system. On April 21, 1975, the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring Mississippi's higher education system into conformity with constitutional and statutory provisions.

After a trial, the district court and appellate court found for the defendants, but, in 1992, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case to the district court to determine if Mississippi had taken the necessary steps to ensure that a student's choice of college was indeed free and unconstrained by Mississippi's former discriminatory policies. The case marked the first time that the Supreme Court defined the applicable legal standards for higher education desegregation.

On February 15, 2002, the court entered a final judgment approving a $503 million settlement . Endorsed by the Mississippi legislature, the settlement will fund a comprehensive plan over a seventeen-year period aimed at improving academic programs, making capital improvements, and expanding summer programs at the State's historically black colleges and universities. The State also will recognize the historically black Jackson State University as a comprehensive university. The district court dismissed the case, but has retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

On January 30, 2017, the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana approved a consent order that addresses the remaining issues in the desegregation case and when fully implemented will lead to its closing. The consent order, negotiated with the school district (the “District”) and private plaintiffs, represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, puts the District on a path to full unitary status within three years provided it:

• Implements a new student assignment plan that desegregates its three nearly all-black elementary schools to the extent practicable, by revising feeder patterns and creating specialized academic programs that will attract a diverse student body;
• Revises the District’s code of conduct to ensure fairness and consistency in the handling of subjective disciplinary offenses that do not threaten safety, and provides District staff with additional tools to address student misbehavior in nondiscriminatory ways;
• Takes reasonable steps to recruit a diverse pool of applicants for faculty and staff vacancies that arise in the course of implementing the new student assignment plan; and
• Incorporates into its student handbook a statement prohibiting discrimination in extracurricular activities and encouraging participation by students of all races.

The consent order declares that the District has already met its desegregation obligations in the area of transportation. The court will retain jurisdiction over the consent order during its implementation, and the Justice Department will monitor the district’s compliance. For more information, please see this press release .

This longstanding desegregation case was filed in 1965 by private plaintiffs, with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and local cooperating attorneys serving as counsel. The United States intervened later that year. In 1969, the Fifth Circuit entered a desegregation order permanently enjoined the District from discriminating on the basis of race or color in the operation of the Meridian schools. In 2010, as part of efforts to enforce the desegregation order, the department began to investigate complaints that the District had implemented a harsh and punitive student discipline policy that resulted in the disproportionate suspension, expulsion, and school-based arrest of black students in Meridian schools. The department found that these kinds of disparities persisted even when the students were at the same school, were of similar ages, and had similar disciplinary histories.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the United States and the District engaged in extensive negotiations, resulting in a proposed consent decree filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March 22, 2013. Along with the proposed consent decree, the parties jointly filed a motion to approve the decree , and the United States separately filed a memorandum of law . Under the consent decree, the district will take steps to create safe and inclusive learning environments in all Meridian schools, including providing students with supports and interventions before excluding them from school; limiting the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; ensuring that discipline consequences are fair and consistent; establishing clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and building data-driven monitoring and accountability systems. On May 30, 2013, the Court adopted the consent order .

For more information regarding the proposed consent decree, please see this press release .

On July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved a consent order  filed by the Justice Department, together with private plaintiffs represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Madison County Board of Education, in this longstanding school desegregation case. The consent order requires the school district to take action to provide equal access to gifted and talented services and other academic programs, ensure non-discrimination in student discipline, and improve practices for faculty recruitment, hiring, assignment and retention. For more information, please see this press release .   

On June 21, 2010, the Division filed a Motion for Leave to file an amicus brief in Biediger, et al. v. Quinnipiac University. Plaintiffs allege that Quinnipiac failed to provide female students an equal opportunity to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics, and that this failure constituted intentional sex discrimination in violation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(1). The plaintiffs allege that Quinnipiac misrepresented its athletic participation numbers by, among other things, requiring women’s teams to artificially increase their number of participants, resulting in some members lacking a genuine varsity athletic participation opportunity; underrepresenting the number of male athletes on teams; eliminating the women's volleyball program; and counting participants on its cheer squad as a sport under Title IX. The United States' amicus brief provided guidance as to what constitutes a genuine participation opportunity, as well as guidance concerning what constitutes a sport for Title IX compliance.

On October 1, 2010, the Section, the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education (OCR), and the Boston Public Schools (BPS) entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve violations of English Language Learner (ELL) students' rights under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 20 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. The 2010 Agreement , which grew out of the Section’s and OCR’s joint compliance review of BPS' ELL programs, was needed to address as soon as possible its failure to test approximately 7,000 students in reading and writing to determine if they were ELL students and over 4,000 known ELL students whom it had misidentified as having opted out of ELL programs between 2003 and 2009. The 2010 Agreement secured ELL and compensatory services for the more than 4,000 misidentified “opt out” students and the 4,300 of the 7,000 students who were improperly identified as non-ELL students. The 2010 Agreement further required BPS to provide all ELL students with English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction by ESL-certified teachers and Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) content classes by teachers trained to provide SEI instruction. While BPS was implementing the 2010 Agreement, OCR and DOJ completed the remainder of their compliance review and negotiated a Successor Agreement with BPS to resolve the additional areas of noncompliance identified in the review. The April 19, 2012 Successor Agreement replaced the 2010 Settlement Agreement and provides systemic, comprehensive relief across BPS’s ELL programs, procedures, and practices. The Successor Agreement requires, inter alia: accurate and timely identification of ELL students; appropriate ESL and SEI services provided by qualified faculty; meaningful communications with Limited English Proficient parents through translations and qualified interpreters; assessments and services specially designed to meet the needs of ELL students who face unique challenges, such as students with disabilities and students with interrupted formal education; and greater access for ELL students to the higher-level learning opportunities in BPS. To ensure these programmatic changes are effective, the agreement further requires BPS to evaluate the effect of these changes on student achievement over time through robust, disaggregated data analyses. For more information on both agreements, please see the 2010 press release and 2012 press release .

In this matter involving the Bound Brook New Jersey School District, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs) as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; ELLs' access to basic skills instruction, special education services, and academic enrichment programs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; and monitoring of students currently enrolled in the ELL program and those students who have exited from the program. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues and on October 16, 2003, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The agreement required the district to provide, among other things: timely assessment of all students with non-English speaking backgrounds; quality curricula and instruction for ELLs; adequate teacher training; and careful monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of current and former ELLs. After the district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement, the agreement ended on January 12, 2007.

On June 17, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in evaluating the Title IX and Equal Protection claims in B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, et al. , Case No. 2:21-cv-00316.  In this case, the plaintiff, an 11-year-old girl who is transgender, challenged H.B. 3293, a state law that prohibits girls who are transgender from participating on female interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, or club athletic teams or sports that are sponsored by any public secondary school or state institution of higher education.  She asked the court to enjoin West Virginia from enforcing H.B. 3293 and allow her to participate on girls’ sports teams consistent with her gender identity.  The plaintiff alleged that H.B. 3293 requires her school, a recipient of federal financial assistance, to exclude her from school athletics on the basis of sex, causing her harm in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  The plaintiff also alleges that H.B. 3293 violates the Equal Protection Clause because the state law discriminates against her because of sex and gender identity and is not substantially related to an exceedingly persuasive justification.  In its statement of interest , the United States advised the court that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause prohibit discrimination against students because of their sex, including because a student is transgender.  The United States concluded that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on these claims in support of her motion for a preliminary injunction. 

Memorandum and Order - B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

On November 13, 2019, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Burlington School District in Burlington, Vermont, to resolve an investigation into allegations of sex discrimination.  The Section initiated its investigation in response to a complaint by a group of parents alleging that their children had been subject to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment, including assault, that went unaddressed by the District.  As a result, their children feared for their safety and several withdrew from the school.  Under the Agreement, the District will take a number of steps to improve its ability to prevent and appropriately respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on sex.  Those steps include retaining the technical assistance of the Mid Atlantic Equity Center to support a review of the District’s sex-based harassment policies, practices, and procedures as well as the District’s training on and implementation protocols for such policies.  The Agreement further requires that the District work with the Equity Center to assess its resources and build capacity at individual schools and at the District-level to ensure that all schools have the capacity to implement fully the District’s policies and procedures.  Under the Agreement, the District will provide particularized training for students and faculty at the elementary school implicated in the complaint, and will conduct climate surveys at that school to assess the presence and effects of harassment and bullying, the inclusiveness and safety of the educational environment, and the effectiveness of the measures taken pursuant to the Agreement.  The Agreement will be in place through the 2021-22 school year.    

On July 14, 2014, the Division filed a Statement of Interest in D.J. et al v. State of California , a state case brought by parents and guardians of English Language Learner (ELL) students against the State of California and the California Department of Education (CDE) among others, which alleged that the State violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (“EEOA”) by failing to respond to credible information that tens of thousands of ELL students were not receiving ELL instructional services.  The Division’s Statement of Interest articulated what the United States maintains are the correct legal standards governing the State’s obligations under the EEOA, including monitoring local education agencies (LEAs) provision of EL instructional services.  In an August 12, 2014 decision, the state court ruled that the State had violated the EEOA and ordered it to take remedial action, reiterating many of the legal standards discussed in the United States’ brief.  In November 2014, the State appealed the ruling, and then subsequently settled the appeal and all of D.J. plaintiffs’ claims in a private settlement approved by the state court.

Applying the standards in the Statement of Interest in its own EEOA compliance review of the State’s monitoring practices, the Division notified CDE and the California State Board of Education in a letter dated May 22, 2015, that the State was not meeting its obligations under the EEOA and needed to respond promptly and appropriately to ensure LEAs provide their EL students with appropriate EL instructional services.  On September 8, 2016, the Division and the State settled the matter in a two-year settlement agreement that requires the State to respond in a timely and effective manner to credible evidence that LEAs are failing to serve their ELLs, including notifying them of violations and providing a protocol by which they must submit to CDE documented evidence that resolves the violations.  The agreement also requires CDE to: consider LEAs’ reports of unserved ELs when selecting schools for monitoring reviews; improve CDE’s online monitoring tool; require that schools found to be out of compliance with specific requirements in this online tool receive onsite monitoring if they fail to provide adequate evidence that the noncompliance has been resolved; and develop and provide training on the monitoring, review, and corrective action processes associated with CDE’s system of monitoring schools for ELL service violations.  For more information, please see the press release .

In this religious discrimination case, the plaintiffs alleged that their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the school board excluded them from using school facilities for a "prayer meeting" at which civic and social issues would be discussed. The school board permits community groups and non-students to use school facilities for a wide variety of civic and recreational purposes such as luncheons, homeowner association meetings, seminars, and athletic activities. The policy permits groups to use school facilities to engage in discussions having a "religious viewpoint," but not to engage in "religious services or instruction." Relying on this distinction, the board denied facility access to the plaintiffs on the grounds that the proposed prayer meeting was a religious service rather than a meeting presented from a religious viewpoint. On April 25, 2003, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, arguing that (1) plaintiffs' proposed meeting fits well within the forum created under the school board's facility use policy, and (2) there is no legal or practical distinction between religious viewpoints on a topic and "religious services or instruction." On June 3, 2003, the Section filed an amicus brief in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On July 10, 2003, the court held a hearing on the parties' motions in which the Section participated. On July 29, 2003, the court issued an order granting summary judgment for plaintiffs. The court concluded that although the plaintiffs' proposed meeting was primarily a religious service, it also included a discussion of family and political issues from a legally protected religious viewpoint. Thus, the court held that the proposed meeting was not "mere religious worship," but included speech that the school district permitted through its facility use policy. The school district therefore improperly denied the plaintiffs access to school facilities for their evening meeting. On February 19, 2004, the case was dismissed.

On February 19, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio opened an investigation into Case Western Reserve University’s (“CWRU”) response to reports of sexual harassment, including sexual assault, and sexual misconduct in its Greek Life community.  The Department’s investigation included interviews with former and current campus employees, students, and alumni, and an extensive review of CWRU’s polices grievance procedures, training, and response to reports of sexual harassment.

On August 22, 2023, the Department and CWRU reached a resolution agreement under Title IX to address the areas of noncompliance identified through the Department’s investigation.  Under the agreement, CWRU will, among other steps: reorganize the Title IX reporting structure to remove it from the purview of the Office of General Counsel and ensure CWRU follows its grievance procedures free from conflicts of interest; promote greater awareness about the Office of Equity and the Title IX Coordinator; require annual training for all students and employees; invest resources into enhanced prevention programming and training for CWRU fraternities and sororities; conduct campus-wide outreach; and implement a campus-wide student survey to better serve its community.  The Department will carefully monitor the CWRU’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2025-2026 academic year.  For more information, please see this letter , press release , and a plain-language summary  of the agreement.

On September 12, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Cedar Rapids Community School District in Cedar Rapids, Iowa to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the school district engaged in improper seclusion and restraint practices. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: end its use of seclusion; limit its use of restraint, revise its restraint procedures and practices, and consistently implement those procedures and practices in all schools; report all instances of restraint and evaluate if they were justified; offer counseling and other services to students who are restrained; adopt policies and procedures to assess suicide risk, prevent suicide and self-harm, and implement immediate crisis intervention for students who threaten or engage in self-harm; designate trained staff to collect and analyze restraint data and oversee the creation of appropriate behavior intervention plans; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and hire two new administrators to oversee schools’ use of restraint and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this letter ,  press release , and  summary of settlement agreement .

In this matter involving Charleston County School District in Charleston, South Carolina, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina conducted an investigation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The United States received complaints that the school district failed to communicate essential information to Spanish-speaking, limited English proficient (LEP) parents, denying their children full and equal access to the school district’s education programs and services.  The United States found that, over the course of several years, the school district often failed to use qualified interpreters to communicate with Spanish-speaking LEP parents and guardians, even when their need for an interpreter was documented or otherwise evident.  The United States also found that the school district did not consistently translate essential written information into Spanish, and asked parents who can only communicate in Spanish to make important decisions about school programs and services without explaining the options in a language they understand. 

On March 2, 2021, the United States entered into a settlement agreement  with the school district to ensure that the school district and each its 80 schools and programs use qualified interpreters and translators to communicate with LEP parents about matters essential to their children’s education, including special education services.  The agreement requires, among other things, that the district take proactive steps by: developing and implementing effective language access policies and procedures; training faculty and staff on how to properly identify and meaningfully communicate with LEP parents and guardians; informing LEP parents and guardians of their right to language access services at special-education related meetings and receive translated special-education related documents; and providing a language-assessment report and bi-annual compliance reports to DOJ.  For more information, please see this press release  and a translated version in Spanish .  A translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish .

In this matter involving Cherry Creek School District in Colorado, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado conducted an investigation under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The United States received complaints that the school district failed to communicate essential information to limited English proficient (LEP) parents, denying their children full and equal access to the school district’s education programs and services.  The LEP parents in the community speak more than 150 languages, and the United States found that, over the course of several years, the school district often failed to use qualified interpreters to communicate with LEP parents, particularly when parents enrolled their children in the district’s schools and during expulsion hearings and other disciplinary proceedings.  

On May 21, 2024, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the school district to ensure that the school district identify LEP parents and provide them with appropriate language assistance services, such as in-person interpretation, remote video or telephonic interpretation, translation, and/or sight translation, when communicating with parents about matters essential to their children’s education.  The agreement requires, among other things, that the district train faculty and staff on how to properly identify and meaningfully communicate with LEP parents and inform LEP parents about their right to language access services.  The district will translate all enrollment documents, including all forms and registration instructions, into any languages used by 100 or more LEP parents in the district.  The district also will identify parents’ preferred language of communication at the beginning of the student enrollment process and use telephonic interpretation services and other language assistance services to help LEP parents navigate the enrollment process.  The district will take similar steps when staff communicate with parents concerning disciplinary proceedings, including potential exclusionary discipline hearings.  The district also will provide annual compliance reports to DOJ. 

For more information, please see this press release and the agreement .  A translated versions of the press release are available in Amharic , Arabic , Chinese , Korean , Russian , Spanish , and Vietnamese , and a translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish .

On July 9, 2004, Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF), an organization that sponsors after-school Good News Bible Clubs, filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction, alleging that officials of the Upland Unified School District (California) discriminated against CEF by allowing non-profit organizations such as the Boy Scouts free use of school facilities while at the same time charging religious organizations such as CEF rent equal to “direct costs.”

The United States filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in this matter, as the United States is charged with enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief if a school deprives students of the equal protections of the laws. The Court granted the United States’ motion.

The United States filed a brief in support of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The United States argued that the district’s practice of charging religious groups a fee to use school facilities for activities serving local youth when the district does not charge secular groups a fee to use facilities serving local youth violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the fee discriminated against CEF’s religious viewpoint.

On November 15, 2004, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction thereby enjoining the district from requiring CEF to pay any rental fees or other fees that are not required of other non-profit community organizations for use of the district’s facilities.

Then, on February 4, 2005, the Court entered a Stipulated Dismissal without prejudice with an attached Settlement Agreement stating that the district agreed, among other terms, to permit CEF equal access to school facilities on the same terms and conditions as other similar non-profit groups.

The department conducted a compliance review of the English Language Learner (ELL) program at the Clay County School District in Alabama to determine whether ELL students were receiving services required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On June 19, 2014, a settlement agreement was reached that will ensure that this rural district takes appropriate action to serve its small but growing population of ELL students, including: increasing services for ELL students, obtaining additional English as a Second Language-certified instructors, conducting significant professional development for teachers, providing adequate materials and classroom supports for ELL students, monitoring the academic performance of current and former ELL students and improving language-accessible communication with limited English proficient parents. For more information, please see this press release .

Settlement Agreement in: Spanish

Press Release in: Spanish

In this matter involving the Clay County School District, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida investigated whether the District was providing appropriate language services to its English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). The investigation revealed that the District was not appropriately identifying EL students or providing them with the educational services and supports needed for EL students to become proficient in English and participate equally in school. On October 30, 2023, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement . Under the agreement, the District will modify its practices so that EL students are properly assessed and identified shortly after their enrollment, promptly provided with language services if they qualify and have the opportunity to equally benefit from the academic and behavioral supports provided to their peers. The District will also make certain that all teachers are qualified, trained and provided enough support and resources to help EL students become fluent in English and understand their core-content courses. The District will also translate and interpret important school information for parents who are not fluent in English. For more information, please see the press release in English , Spanish , and Haitian-Creole . The agreement is available in English , Spanish , and Haitian-Creole , and summaries of the agreement are available in English , Spanish , and Haitian-Creole .

In this matter involving the Colton Joint Unified School District in California, the United States investigated whether the district’s programming for English learners was adequate under Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. After a multi-year investigation conducted by the Educational Opportunities Section along with the U.S. Attorneys’ Office for the Central District of California, the United States found that English learners in the district did not receive adequate English language instruction, and that core content teachers did not have the requisite training to meet English learner needs in math, science and social studies courses. On December 19, 2022, the United States entered an out-of-court settlement agreement with the district to ensure that every English learner in the district receives English language instruction, and that teachers working with English learners are trained and qualified to meet their needs. The district will also implement additional changes to ensure that English learners have an equal opportunity to participate in the district’s various programs, including programs for gifted and talented students. The agreement will remain in place for three years. For more information please see this press release in English and Spanish ( español ).

In this sex discrimination case, high school girls in Michigan filed a complaint alleging that the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that MHSAA refused to sanction additional sports for high school girls, provided inferior practice and playing facilities for post-season tournaments held in certain girls' sports, and required girls to play certain sports in disadvantageous seasons. This last contention allegedly reduced participation opportunities for high school girls by shortening playing seasons, thereby preventing participation in club competitions and all-star competitions involving players from other states and negatively affecting their chances of being recruited for collegiate-level sports programs. On September 7, 1999, the Section was granted leave to participate as litigating amicus curiae and filed an amicus brief at the summary judgment stage, arguing that the case should go forward under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. On January 21, 2002, the court ruled in plaintiffs' favor, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

In the summer of 2001, the parties participated in mediation which resulted in a settlement of all claims except for the issue of playing seasons. The court conducted a two-week bench trial in September 2001 and received evidence concerning the following questions: (1) whether MHSAA, by assuming controlling authority over interscholastic athletics from member schools that receive federal funds, is subject to Title IX; (2) whether MHSAA is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) whether MHSAA's scheduling of only girls' sports in disadvantageous seasons violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. On December 17, 2001, the court issued its ruling finding in favor of the plaintiffs and the Section on all three issues. See Communities for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n , 178 F. Supp.2d 805 (W.D. Mich. 2001). The court held that MHSAA is subject to Title IX and is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In so holding, the court further concluded that MHSAA's scheduling practices violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Lastly, the court ordered MHSAA to submit a compliance plan to remedy the discriminatory scheduling of girls' sports.

The Section filed an opposition to the compliance plan in June 2002. After reviewing briefing on the issue of the remedial plan and conducting a hearing on the matter, the Court issued a ruling requiring MHSAA to switch girls' basketball and volleyball to their traditional, advantageous seasons of the winter and fall respectively. The Court ultimately approved the rest of MHSAA's remedial plan, finding that the switching of the remaining sports at issue (soccer, golf, tennis, swimming, and diving) balanced the inequity of nontraditional playing seasons amongst high school boys and girls in Michigan.

MHSAA appealed the district court's rulings on liability and the remedial plan to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Sixth Circuit. The Division filed an amicus brief in August 2003. In July 2004, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that MHSAA's scheduling of sports violates the Equal Protection Clause. MHSAA then appealed to the Supreme Court, which instructed the Sixth Circuit to reconsider the case. On August 16, 2006, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion that again affirmed the district court's ruling that the sports schedule discriminates against female athletes on the basis of sex. On December 7, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied review of MHSAA's petition for certiorari.

In 1999, the Section intervened in this lawsuit alleging the Denver Public Schools (DPS) violated Title VI and the EEOA by failing to take appropriate actions to overcome language barriers of its English Language Learner (ELL) students. On June 16,1999, the district court approved a new English Language Acquisition Plan for the Denver Public Schools.

The result of compliance monitoring by the Section and the Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE), and DPS’s recognition that the 1999 order no longer reflected the district’s own best practices for serving ELL students, moved the parties to develop a new consent decree to replace the existing plan. On April 16, 2013 the district court in Denver approved a comprehensive consent decree between the Department of Justice, CHE, and DPS that requires DPS to provide language services to the more than 28,000 ELL students enrolled in the district’s 170 schools.

The consent decree requires the district to implement comprehensive measures to ensure that ELLs have equal opportunities to succeed academically in district educational programs, starting with the proper identification of ELL students when they enter DPS.  Among other things, the consent decree requires DPS to: provide language acquisition services to ELL students in district schools, including charter schools, until they are proficient in English and to monitor ELL students after they exit services to ensure they are participating meaningfully and equally in mainstream classes; to make translation and interpretation services available for thousands of Limited English Proficient parents who speak more than 130 different languages – ensuring that all parents have access to essential information about their children’s education;  to provide Pre-K language services at each school where DPS offers early childhood education; and to make  appropriate language services available for ELL students who face unique challenges, including refugee students and students with disabilities.

For more information about the 2013 Consent Decree, please see the following fact sheet available in: English | አማርኛ (Amharic) | العربية (Arabic) | မြန်မာစကား (Burmese) | Soomaali (Somali) | Español (Spanish) | Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) .

The June 16, 2009 complaint alleges that FHSAA’s new policy discriminates against female students by reducing the maximum number of competitions that a school can schedule by 20% for varsity teams and 40% for sub-varsity teams while exempting 36,000 boys who play football and only 4,300 girls and 201 boys who participate in competitive cheerleading. The complaint also alleges that OCR has not recognized competitive cheerleading as a sport under Title IX and that even if it were recognized as a sport, the new policy exempts nearly nine times as many boys than girls from the reductions in their competition schedule. The complaint further alleges that FHSAA sanctions football for a total of 23 weeks of coaching, practices, and competitions, while the majority of girls’ sports operate for only a total of 15 weeks. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 19, 2009. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on July1, 2009. On July 14th, the Division filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The United States’ amicus brief argues that plaintiffs’ allegations establish claims of intentional discrimination, not just disparate impact, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause that are sufficiently detailed to survive the motion to dismiss. The brief also argues that there is a substantial likelihood that the Title IX and Equal Protection claims will succeed on the merits, and that the court should preliminarily enjoin new Policy 6. On July 15, the court granted the United States’ motion for leave to file its brief and its request for oral argument at a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for July 17. Shortly thereafter on July 15, FHSAA voted unanimously to rescind its challenged policy. On July 16, 2009, the court cancelled the preliminary injunction hearing because the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that FHSAA’s rescission of the policy rendered the motion for a preliminary injunction moot. On October 21, 2009, the court issued an order granting the parties’ agreed motion to dismiss the case without prejudice and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their settlement until December 31, 2010.

In this matter involving the Coolidge Unified School District (“the District”) in Arizona, the Section examined whether the District’s instructional services and materials for English Learner (EL) students and its training for their teachers and administrators complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Opportunities Act of 1974.  On April 16, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to improve and increase language instruction for EL students so they can become fluent in English and understand the coursework in all of their academic subjects.  The agreement also requires the district to provide robust teacher and administrator training, obtain the special materials and curricula that English learner students need to succeed academically, and actively evaluate students’ progress over time.  The agreement will remain in place for three full school years.  For more information, please see this press release in English and Spanish . A translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish .

In this longstanding desegregation case involving the Franklin County Board of Education (North Carolina), the Section monitors the school district's compliance with existing court orders. The school district achieved partial unitary status in certain areas in 2002 and additional areas in 2018 . The court retains jurisdiction over the Green factor of student assignment, including the school district’s administration of discipline and its gifted and talented programs.

On April 13, 2000, the school district moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that it had attained unitary status. On November 22, 2000, the Section filed a  memorandum  opposing, in part, the school district's motion. On June 24, 2002, the district court held that the school district was partially unitary with respect to school transportation, extracurricular activities, school construction and facilities, student transfers, and faculty desegregation. On June 17, 2003, the Court approved a Consent Order governing the school district’s remaining areas of obligation (student assignment, staff desegregation, and quality of education). A new student assignment plan was approved in a May 2005 order .

At the court’s request, in a January 2018 response to the school district’s annual report the Section identified two areas of ongoing district noncompliance with the 2003 Consent Order that pertain to the assignment of students within schools: (1) discipline that excludes students from schools and classrooms; and (2) the referral and assignment of students to the gifted and talented program. With the consent of the  school district, the Section simultaneously filed a joint motion to declare the district partially unitary and approve a proposed stipulation with regard to several of the school district’s remaining desegregation obligations. Separately, counsel for Plaintiffs asked the Court to require the school district to provide notice of the proposed changes and invite public comment before dismissing any part of the 2003 Order. The Court granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s request.

Having provided the public appropriate notice and an opportunity to submit comments pursuant to a court-approved schedule, the United States and the school district filed a Joint Motion and Memorandum of Support on December 14, 2018, to declare the District partially unitary with respect to desegregation of staff and the following quality of education areas governed by the 2003 Order: academic achievement, advanced course offerings and enrollment, special education program, and student dropouts. The court granted the joint motion in an order dated December 18, 2018.

This case was brought by the Henrico County School Board (board) to appeal a Virginia hearing officer’s decision in favor of R.T.’s parents’ private school placement. R.T. is an autistic child entitled to a free and appropriate education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The hearing officer agreed with R.T.’s parents that the board failed to provide R.T. with a FAPE and that the private school placement was a FAPE. One issue before the federal district court was which party should pay for the private school placement pending the board’s appeal of the state hearing officer’s decision. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s regulation, 34 C.F.R. §300.514(c), which implements the IDEA’s stay put provision, 20 U.S.C. §1415(j), the board should fund the placement while litigation is pending. The board challenged the validity of the statutory and regulatory stay put provisions, and the Section filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education to defend both provisions. The Section argued that the regulation was consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory provision and that the statutory provision was a valid exercise of the Spending Clause power. On June 22, 2006, the court issued an opinion rejecting the board’s Spending Clause challenge and agreeing with the United States that the board must pay for R.T.’s private pendent placement.

On January 18, 2017, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Covington Independent Public Schools to ensure the District does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its administration of school discipline. The agreement will guarantee that the District provides reasonable modifications of school policy for students with disabilities to avoid the use of exclusionary discipline, isolation, seclusion, or restraint, and contact with law enforcement. The agreement will also replace the use of punitive discipline with more positive approaches as part of an overall focus on improving student achievement and school climate.

This is a cooperative resolution of the Justice Department’s investigation, opened in November 2015 in response to complaints that the District’s discipline practices discriminated on the basis of race and disability. As a part of the settlement agreement, the District will continue its current practice of not stationing School Resource Officers (SROs) at elementary schools; cease requesting SROs to enforce disciplinary rules; eliminate the use of seclusion and isolation rooms; prohibit the use of restraints unless there is imminent danger to the physical safety of the student or others; develop a protocol to identify students who are disproportionately subject to disciplinary referrals, particularly those students who receive exclusionary discipline as a result, and provide those students with interventions and supports intended to reduce disciplinary actions; take prompt and effective steps to help students who are in crisis; implement a code of conduct that focuses on positive interventions, rather than punitive discipline; and train administrators and teachers on how to provide all students with effective interventions and supports.

On August 7, 2017, Cleveland Central High School and Cleveland Central Middle School opened in Cleveland, Mississippi, a major milestone in this longstanding desegregation case, which was initially filed in 1965 by private plaintiffs (the United States intervened in 1985).

On May 2, 2011, the United States had filed a motion for further relief asking the court to find that the district had violated its desegregation obligations under several previously-entered desegregation orders governing the District, and to compel the district's compliance with federal law. In its brief , the United States argued that, while the district had been governed by desegregation orders for more than 42 years, the predominantly black schools on the east side of the District had never been desegregated. The United States further asserted that the ratio of black and white faculty at numerous District schools reinforced the reputation of those schools in the community as "white" or "black" schools. The district filed an opposition brief on August 18, 2011, and the United States filed a reply brief on October 6, 2011.

In an opinion issued on March 28, 2012, the court determined that two schools, a middle school and high school that were formerly de jure black schools, had never been desegregated. The court also found that the ratio of black and white faculty at every school in the District deviated from the district-wide faculty ratio. The court ordered the district to submit a proposed desegregation plan addressing these issues. On December 11, 2012, following a hearing on the District’s proposed plan, the Court issued an order and opinion , finding that the District's proposal did not meet constitutional requirements and ordering the District to implement a "freedom of choice" plan for its middle and high school students.

On February 21, 2013, the United States filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its remedial order, arguing in its brief that "freedom of choice" was an inadequate remedy in this case. The Court denied the motion in an April 30, 2013 order . On April 1, 2014, following the United States' appeal of the court's remedial order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion reversing and remanding for further proceedings. On January 23, 2015, the United States submitted a proposed desegregation plan to the Court. The district filed two separate plans. The United States objected to the District's plans on February 13, 2015 and responded to the District's objections to its plan on February 27, 2015. The court held a five-day evidentiary hearing on the proposed plans in May 2015. 

On May 13, 2016, the Court approved the U.S. plan and ordered the Cleveland School District to consolidate its secondary schools, rejecting as unconstitutional both of the District’s proposals. For more information on the Court’s order, please see this press release .  After several months during which the District proceeded with an appeal of the Court’s May 2016 decision to the Fifth Circuit and submitted additional proposals to the district court, the Parties reached an agreement.  On February 8, 2017, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Modification of the Court’s May 2016 Order that would end the appeal and remove the additional proposals from the district court’s consideration.  In a March 13 order , the Court granted the Parties’ motion, and on March 17, 2017, the Court issued an updated implementation timeline . For more information on the Court’s order, please see this press release .

Cleveland Central High School opened to all District 9th-12th graders and Cleveland Central Middle School opened to all District 7th-8th graders in August 2017.  The Department of Justice will continue to monitor the District’s compliance with the Court’s orders and federal law.

In this matter involving the Crestwood School District in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, the Department investigated a complaint alleging violations of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 20 U.S.C. §1703 et seq., related to the district's English Language Learner (ELL) program, as well as claims of employment discrimination and unlawful retaliation. On August 13, 2014, the Department and the district entered into a comprehensive, multi-part Settlement Agreement. The agreement requires the district to ensure all of its ELL students, most of whom are native Arabic speakers, receive appropriate English as a Second Language and sheltered content instruction taught by teachers who are properly qualified and trained. The district also must provide ELL students and limited English proficient parents with meaningful access to important information, including discipline and special education materials and procedures. Pursuant to the agreement, the district will work with the Department' Community Relations Service to improve parental outreach and community engagement, establish a community advisory panel, and implementing training on cultural competency. The district also will retain a qualified consultant to help it draft a comprehensive recruitment and hiring policy and implement best practices for recruiting, hiring, and retaining a qualified and diverse faculty and staff. The agreement also requires the district to institute internal complaint processes to investigate and resolve allegations of employment discrimination and/or retaliation. The district's compliance with the agreement will be monitored for four years. For more information, please see this press release .

Settlement Agreement in: Arabic

Press Release in: Arabic

On June 16, 2004, the parents of a 5th-grade student at the Hadley School Program for the Creative and Academically Talented sued the school district of the City of Saginaw, Michigan for allegedly discriminating against the student’s religious beliefs. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the district prohibited him from “selling” candy cane ornaments with an attached card explaining the religious origin of the candy cane as part of “Classroom City”–a multi-disciplinary marketplace town simulation that was part of the school’s social studies curriculum. The district conceded that the student had properly followed the assignment’s directions and received a grade of A for the simulation. Both the plaintiffs and the district filed cross motions for summary judgment.

The United States filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The United States argued that the district’s censorship of student religious speech that otherwise fulfills the assignment criteria violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments proscribing government regulation of speech that discriminates against a particular point of view–here a religious viewpoint. On September 18, 2006, the Court issued an opinion finding that the district had abridged the plaintiff student’s First Amendment free speech rights, but granted the district’s motion for summary judgment on other grounds.

On September 7, 2022, the Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Czerwienski, et. al. v. Harvard University, et. al .  The plaintiffs in this case are doctoral students at Harvard University who allege that they were retaliated against for reporting sexual harassment by a professor.  Harvard argues that it cannot be held liable for any retaliatory acts by the professor.  The United States’ brief clarifies that a recipient of federal financial assistance, like Harvard University, may be held liable for damages under Title IX where retaliatory conduct amounts to an official act of the recipient or where the recipient is deliberately indifferent to its employee’s retaliatory conduct.

On July 17, 2019, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah notified the Davis School District in Utah that we had opened an investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in response to parent complaints that Davis deprived students of equal protection of the law based on race. The Department’s investigation principally focused on Davis’s response to serious and widespread racial harassment of Black and Asian-American students.  The Department also investigated reports that Davis disciplined Black students more harshly than their white peers for similar behavior and that Davis denied Black students the ability to form student groups while supporting similar requests by other students.  After conducting over 100 interviews and an extensive review of Davis’s policies, trainings, discipline and other records, and responses to reports of racial harassment and other discrimination, the Department concluded that Davis violated students’ equal protection rights.

On September 15, 2021, the Department issued a  letter  notifying Davis of the Department’s conclusions, and on October 20, 2021, the Department entered into a settlement agreement  with Davis to address its violations of the Equal Protection Clause.  Under the Agreement, Davis will take significant steps to prevent and appropriately respond to racial harassment and other discrimination, including to: create a new department to handle complaints of race discrimination; train staff on how to identify, investigate, and respond to complaints of racial harassment and discriminatory discipline practices; inform students and parents of how to report harassment and discrimination; create a centralized, electronic reporting system to track and manage complaints and Davis’s response to complaints; implement student, staff, and parent training and education on identifying and preventing race discrimination, including discriminatory harassment; analyze and review discipline data and amend policies to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of discipline policies; and develop a districtwide procedure to assess requests for student groups and treat such requests fairly.  The Department will carefully monitor Davis’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2024-2025 school year. For more information, please see this  summary and the  press release . An Amendment to the 2021 Agreement is available, here .

In October 2012, counsel for the Sikh Coalition filed a complaint with the Department of Justice alleging that a middle school student had been repeatedly targeted with verbal and physical harassment because of his Sikh faith. The United States has authority to investigate and resolve complaints of religious and national origin harassment through its enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Following an inquiry into the student-specific complaints, the United States notified the district of its concerns that the district had failed to respond promptly and appropriately to the Sikh Coalition's allegations of harassment, including allegations that the student was called "Aladdin" because he wore a turban and was told by a fellow student to "go back to his country." The United States also raised concerns that the district had not investigated witness statements that the student had been called a "terrorist" and that there was a history of fellow students targeting him because of his turban. The United States also found that the disciplinary measures the district did take had not been effective in ending the harassment, and that the student feared continued harassment.

The district worked cooperatively with the United States to resolve the complaint and ensure greater protections for the student. The May 2013 Resolution Agreement, which will be in effect until the end of the 2014-2015 school year, requires the district to: work with a consultant to develop and implement anti-harassment training at the student's middle and high school; immediately implement a safety plan to ensure that the student is safe at school and, should incidents of harassment occur, that the district responds quickly and effectively; and meet with the student, his family, and administrators from his middle school and the high school where he will enroll, to identify key school personnel who can support the student should any future incidents of harassment occur. The Parties also agreed to continue to work collaboratively to resolve the United States' remaining concerns regarding the district's anti-harassment policies, procedures, and practices, and to ensure that district students and employees had appropriate training and guidelines on their federal civil rights and obligations as they pertain to harassment based on religion and national origin.

As a result of that joint effort, the district and the United States agreed to a second Resolution Agreement in November 2014 that supplements the existing and operative May 2013 agreement. The districtwide agreement, which will be in effect through the 2016-2017 school year, is designed to enhance the district's ability to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on national origin and religion and to provide clear and consistent procedures for reporting, investigating, and responding to such conduct. The agreement requires the district to: review and revise all district anti-harassment and discipline policies and procedures to ensure consistency with the district's obligations under federal law; ensure that parents and students with limited English proficiency have access to essential information, including discipline policies and procedures, in a language they understand; develop and implement annual age- and position-appropriate trainings on religious and national origin harassment for all students, district and school administrators, faculty, and staff; and continue to build upon the district's existing anti-bullying initiatives and the May 2013 resolution agreement.

For more information, please see this press release .

EOS Fact Sheet: AAPI MASSA

EOS Fact Sheet: AAPI MASSA (Punjabi)

The Department of Justice, through the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, filed a statement of interest on July 7, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Doe v. Fulton County School District.  In this case, the plaintiff, a middle school girl with significant physical, developmental, and intellectual disabilities, alleges that the Fulton County School District   subjected her to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex.  Her claims of discrimination arise from an escalating series of sexual assaults and rape that she endured at the hands of other students while riding on a District special needs school bus, all with no intervention by the bus driver.  The plaintiff seeks damages under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as well as injunctive relief under the Georgia Open Records Act.  On June 15, 2020, the District filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing primarily that the knowledge of a bus driver categorically may not be attributed to the District for purposes of plaintiff’s discrimination claims.  In its statement of interest, the United States advises the court that determining whether a school district employee is an “appropriate person” under Title IX is fact-dependent and thus may not be based on the employee’s title alone.  The United States concludes that proper application of Title IX case law requires that plaintiff be permitted to demonstrate facts in support of her allegations and that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should therefore be denied.

In November 2010, the Department of Justice received a complaint alleging that students in the school district were being harassed by other students because they didn't dress or act in ways that conform to gender stereotypes. Pursuant to Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Departments of Justice and Education conducted an extensive investigation into sex-based harassment in the district's middle and high schools. Many students reported that the unsafe and unwelcoming school climate inhibited their ability to learn.

Six student plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Anoka-Hennepin School District in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in July 2011. In August 2011, the Court asked the United States to join in the mediation of the lawsuit. On March 5, 2012. The United States, the six student plaintiffs, and the District filed a Consent Decree , which was entered by the Court on March 6, 2012. Also on March 5, 2012, the three parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve the Proposed Consent Decree and a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Joint Motion to Approve the Proposed Consent Decree , and the United States filed its Complaint-in-Intervention .

The Consent Decree requires the school district to retain an expert consultant in the area of sex-based harassment to review the district's policies and procedures concerning harassment; develop and implement a comprehensive plan for preventing and addressing student-on-student sex-based harassment at the middle and high schools; enhance and improve its training of faculty, staff and students on sex-based harassment; hire or appoint a Title IX coordinator to ensure proper implementation of the district's sex-based harassment policies and procedures and district compliance with Title IX; retain an expert consultant in the area of mental health to address the needs of students who are victims of harassment; provide for other opportunities for student involvement and input into the district's ongoing anti-harassment efforts; improve its system for maintaining records of investigations and responding to allegations of harassment; conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluation of its anti-harassment efforts; and submit annual compliance reports to the departments during the five year life of the Consent Decree. For more information on the Consent Decree, please see this press release .

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating Colorado Springs' Falcon School District 49 in response to complaints that the District was not adequately responding to incidents of racial harassment and discrimination in its schools. On January 25, 2010, the parties executed a settlement agreement to resolve the United States' concerns. A modified settlement agreement designed to address the District's non-compliance with the parties' original settlement agreement was executed on October 14, 2014. The modified settlement agreement requires the District to adequately address incidents of racial harassment by keeping adequate records, analyzing those records, training teachers and students, and providing appropriate disciplinary responses. For more information on this settlement, please see this press release and agreement.

On November 12, 2020, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington entered into a Settlement Agreement with Federal Way Public Schools in Federal Way, Washington to resolve an investigation into allegations of peer-on-peer harassment on the basis of religion and national origin between 2014 and 2018, and that the District failed to properly communicate with parents and guardians who are not English language proficient. The Department initiated its investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in response to complaints by parents alleging their children had been subjected to severe and pervasive religion- and national-origin-based harassment that went unaddressed by the District. The complaints alleged that other students repeatedly called Muslim students “terrorists,” pulled off their hijabs, and physically assaulted them, and told a Latina student to “Go back to Mexico,” threatened to kill her, and physically assaulted her. The Department also investigated complaints that the District failed to properly communicate with parents and guardians with English language barriers as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. Under the Agreement, the District will take proactive steps to improve its ability to prevent and appropriately respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on religion and national origin. Those steps include retaining consultants to provide technical assistance to support a review of the District’s harassment policies, practices, and procedures, as well as the District’s training on and implementation of protocols for such policies. The Agreement also requires the District to work with the consultants to assess its resources and build capacity at individual schools and at the District level to ensure that antiharassment policies are properly implemented. The District will also provide training for students and faculty, and will survey the educational environment and effectiveness of measures taken pursuant to the Agreement. Lastly, the District will ensure that it communicates essential school-related information in a language that parents and guardians with limited English proficiency understand so that their children can access the District’s educational programs. The Section will monitor compliance with this three-year agreement. For more information, please see this press release  and Extension Agreement .

Settlement Agreement: English | Español (Spanish) | العربية (Arabic) | Soomaali (Somali)    

On February 6, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona approved a Unitary Status Plan ("USP") filed by the Department of Justice, together with private plaintiffs and the Tucson Unified School District. The USP is the latest step in this longstanding desegregation case, originally filed in 1974. The United States intervened in the case in 1976. In 2012, after extensive negotiations, the parties jointly submitted the USP, a four-year plan requiring the District to undertake a robust set of measures to desegregate its schools. The USP touches on nearly every aspect of school operations and lays a strong foundation for a high quality educational environment for all students. For more information, please see this press release .

On December 1, 2021, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Frederick County Public School District in Maryland to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into complaints that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained children enrolled in the district’s specialized programs for students with autism and emotional and behavioral disabilities.  Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities.  The district will, among other things: prohibit the use of seclusion; report all instances of restraint and evaluate whether they were justified; designate trained staff to collect and analyze restraint data and oversee the creation of appropriate behavior intervention plans; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; design and implement procedures for handling complaints about restraint; offer counseling and compensatory education services to students with disabilities who were subjected to the district’s discriminatory practices; and hire an administrator to supervise school-based staff and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA.  For more information, please see this letter , press release , and summary of the agreement .

On June 24, 2024, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with Fulton County Schools following an investigation into the district’s response to an escalating series of student-on-student sexual assaults on a school bus serving students with special needs.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The investigation found that the school district’s policies and practices failed to ensure equal access to its educational programs based on sex, disability, and national origin/English Learner status.  Under the settlement agreement, the district will, among other steps: revise its policies for responding to complaints of student-on-student sexual misconduct; provide appropriate district personnel with trainings on student-on-student sexual misconduct, including the vulnerabilities unique to students with disabilities; ensure it provides students with disabilities the accommodations they need to participate in the district’s educational programs; and ensure that appropriate language assistance services are available to Limited English Proficient parents and guardians.  The United States will monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.  For more information, please see this press release in  English  and Spanish .

Settlement Agreement: English | Espa ñ ol (Spanish)

In this matter involving the Ganado Unified School District in Arizona, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner (“ELL”)  students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. §1703(f).  On February 18, 2014, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the district’s noncompliance with the EEOA.  The agreement requires the district to: improve language acquisition instruction to ELL students; conduct significant training for staff and teachers of ELL students; provide adequate materials to support their acquisition of English and academic content; monitor ELL students who opt out of ELL services and after they exit such services to ensure they are participating equally in instructional programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of the ELL program.  The training-related remedies require teachers to facilitate ELL students’ access to the grade-level core content curriculum by using appropriate instructional strategies and providing a culturally responsive learning environment.  For more information, please see this press release .

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) partnered with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division - Educational Opportunities Section (DOJ) to initiate a compliance review of the Gallup-McKinley County School District (District). The purpose of the review was to determine whether the District discriminated against Native Americans by excluding them from college and career readiness programs and courses, such as Gifted and Talented (GATE), Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate and honors courses. We also evaluated whether the District discriminated against Native American parents by failing to ensure meaningful access to the information surrounding the aforementioned programs and courses.

On June 16, 2017, the District entered into a Resolution Agreement to address OCR and the DOJ’s concerns. As part of the Agreement, the District agreed to (i) retain a consultant to examine and make recommendations to address the underrepresentation of Native American students in the college and career readiness programs and courses; (ii) improve outreach to the Native American community to ensure that Native American students and their parents are timely informed about the various college and career readiness programs and courses, including the application and admission processes and procedures; (iii) review and revise its practices and procedures for identifying and recommending students to college and career readiness programs and courses; (iv) provide mandatory training to teachers involved in the identification or referral of students to the college and career readiness programs and courses; (v) increase the number of college and career readiness programs and courses offered in its high schools; (vi) monitor the academic performance of students enrolled in the college and career readiness programs and courses, providing academic support where necessary; and (vii) provide language assistance, including translation services, for limited English proficient parents/guardians.

On January 4, 2001, the court approved a five-year consent decree negotiated by the parties to eliminate further the vestiges of segregation in the Tennessee system of public higher education. Under this consent decree, the State committed to creating new high-demand programs at TSU, particularly at the downtown campus (the former UT-N site), to appeal in particular to nontraditional students. Other efforts included revitalization of the downtown TSU campus, an increase in system-wide efforts to recruit black undergraduate students, and the creation and funding of a TSU endowment for educational excellence. In an order dated September 21, 2006, the court recognized the parties' efforts and achievements in the case in establishing a unitary system of public higher education in Tennessee, and approved the parties' joint motion for a final order of dismissal and terminated this longstanding litigation.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education filed a statement of interest on June 29, 2015 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board.  In this case, the plaintiff, a transgender boy, alleges that the Gloucester County School Board unlawfully discriminated against him and denied him equal treatment and benefits based on his sex when it passed a policy that prohibited transgender students from using facilities matching their gender identity.  The plaintiff, represented by the A.C.L.U., asked the court for a Preliminary Injunction to permit him to use the boys’ restrooms the beginning of next school year.  In the statement of interest, the departments advised the court that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination against students because of their sex, including on the basis of a student's gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity to sex stereotypes. The departments also stated that a sex-stereotyping claim can be based on an individual’s anatomical features, as well as behavior and appearance.  The departments concluded that the plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction had a likelihood of success on the merits under Title IX and that granting the relief would serve the public interest.

On June 10, 2024, the Department entered into a settlement agreement with Hawkins County Schools in eastern Tennessee in response to complaints of racial harassment and discrimination targeting Black students. The agreement resolved an investigation conducted jointly with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The investigation focused on whether the school district insufficiently responded to the race-based harassment. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure it properly responds to complaints of harassment and monitors and addresses any racially hostile environment. The district will, among other steps: retain a consultant to support agreement implementation and creation of a discrimination-free learning environment for all; create a new electronic reporting portal; update its racial harassment and school discipline policies; train staff on identifying, investigating, and responding to complaints of racial harassment and discriminatory discipline practices; inform students and parents of how to report harassment and discrimination; conduct listening sessions, school climate surveys, training, and educational events on identifying and preventing race discrimination; and analyze discipline data and amend policies to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of discipline policies. For more information, please see this findings letter and press release .

A sixth-grade student who practiced Islam wore her hijab, a religious head covering, for several weeks at the beginning of the 2003-04 school year in the Muskogee Public School District. On September 11, 2003, school officials told the sixth-grader that she could no longer wear her hijab because of the “no hats” policy in the school’s dress code. The dress code, however, had not been applied consistently, and the school district had allowed students to wear hats for medical, educational, and other secular purposes. When the sixth-grader refused to remove her hijab, she was suspended for eight days.

In October 2003, the student, through her father, sued the school district for alleged violations of her constitutional rights and Oklahoma law. The United States opened an investigation in November 2003, and then intervened in the lawsuit upon finding evidence to support a claim based on the denial of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 6, 2004, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment and an accompanying memorandum in support .

On May 20, 2004, the parties negotiated a consent order . Under the six-year consent order, the school district must: allow the plaintiff to wear her hijab; make similar religious accommodations for any other student in the school system who has a bona fide religious objection to the dress code; implement a training program for all teachers and administrators regarding the revised dress code; and publicize the revisions to students and parents. The district also must certify its compliance with the terms of the order to the United States for a four-year period. The private plaintiffs and the school district also negotiated a confidential damages settlement and the claim for expungement of her school records. For more on this settlement, please see the press release linked here.

In this matter involving the Horry County Schools, the Section examined whether South Carolina’s third-largest public school district was providing appropriate services to its rapidly growing population of English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). On August 24, 2017, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps that the district would take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA. Among other things, the agreement required the district to: properly identify and place EL students when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English and access grade-level core content instruction; secure enough teachers certified in English as a Second Language to serve all EL students; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the EL program; monitor the academic performance of current and former EL students; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time. The agreement required the district to regularly report to the Section on the agreement’s implementation; the agreement was terminated December 2023.

In a long-standing desegregation case, the Huntsville City Schools proposed plans for construction to replace or expand several schools. Following negotiations, the United States agreed not to oppose the district's proposed motion for approval of school construction plan, which the district submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The court approved the plan on May 20, 2013. On April 21, 2015, the court issued an opinion setting forth its reasons for approving a consent order jointly filed by the United States and the Huntsville City Schools. The consent order revises attendance zones and strengthens magnet offerings across the school district; expands access to pre-K, gifted programs, advanced course offerings, academic after-school programs, and college counseling; and includes comprehensive remedies to address racial discrimination in student discipline, among other areas.

On August 28, 2023, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas entered into a Settlement Agreement with Highland Community College in Kansas to resolve an investigation into allegations it discriminated against Black students—primarily Black student-athletes—on the basis of race in the administration of its discipline, housing and campus security policies and procedures, and its response to complaints of racial discrimination. The investigation was conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the settlement, the college will strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure an effective response to  students’ complaints of racial discrimination and clarify campus security policies, procedures, and training to promote consistent, non-discriminatory interactions between security personnel and students. The college will, among other steps, train relevant staff on how to respond to and resolve allegations of discrimination; promote fair and equitable application of discipline policies and analyze discipline data to ensure non-discrimination; train campus security and other staff on effective de-escalation techniques and non-coercive methods of gathering information; survey and improve the climate and culture of the college’s main campus and cultivate safe, welcoming spaces for Black students; and ensure students’ equitable access to the college’s education programs and activities regardless of race. For more information, please see the cover letter to the agreement and press release .

On November 22, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with Illinois Central College in Peoria, Illinois, to ensure that students with disabilities have access to the College’s programs, and to address concerns related to the College’s process for investigating complaints of disability discrimination. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that a student with a hearing disability was denied access to the College’s theatre program, and that the College failed to adequately investigate the student’s complaint. Under the settlement agreement, the College will update its investigation process to ensure that student complaints of disability discrimination are handled in a fair and timely manner. In addition, the College will train the managers and staff involved in investigations, as well as staff in the College’s theatre department, on the new complaint investigation procedures and the requirements of the ADA. Finally, the College will appoint an ADA Coordinator charged with overseeing implementation of the revised processes and compliance with Title II of the ADA.

In this matter involving the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), the Section conducted a review to determine whether ISBE was providing appropriate guidance and monitoring of school districts' services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). The Section determined that ISBE was violating the EEOA because its administrative rules and guidance did not ensure that districts serve ELL students beyond the three-year requirement under State law for transitional bilingual education (TBE) and transitional program of instruction (TPI) services. Although ISBE denied violating the EEOA, it agreed to revise its administrative rules and guidance to make clear that ELLs must receive services until they achieve English proficiency on the State's mandated test. The amended rules were approved by ISBE on June 24, 2010, were cleared by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules on July 13, 2010, and will take effect once filed with the Illinois Secretary of State. See press release . The amended rules require school districts that terminate TBE and TPI services at year three to submit to ISBE a plan explaining the ELL services to be provided beyond year three, the staff providing such services, and the resources available to implement those services. ISBE also agreed to monitor these plans to determine if they are sufficient and appropriately implemented. ISBE further agreed that it will issue guidance identifying educationally sound ELL services that could be provided in lieu of TBE and TPI services after year three. ISBE released this guidance in March 2011. Pursuant to the agreement between the Department and ISBE, ISBE will apply the amended rules and this guidance when monitoring districts' ELL programs.

Following negotiations, the parties agreed to a consent order , which the court approved on July 14, 2000. The order required the district to take steps to increase African-American student participation in its gifted program and its advanced classes. To decrease the number of African-American students in resource classes, the order also required the district to annually evaluate students in resource classes to determine if placement in a regular class would be more appropriate. The JISD provided three reports in conjunction with its requirements under the order, as well as supplemental reports requested by the Section. On October 16, 2001, the parties agreed to, and the court signed, an agreed order of dismissal , indicating that the JISD had achieved unitary states in all facets of its operations.

In September 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights began investigating the Jefferson Parish Public School System ("JPPSS") after the Departments received several complaints alleging violations of federal civil rights laws. Specifically, the complaints concerned JPPSS's policies and practices for student registration, enrollment, and graduation; JPPSS's policies and practices for communicating with national origin minority parents who have limited English proficiency; and JPPSS's response to alleged harassment of Latino students based on their national origin. After requesting and reviewing documents and information provided by JPPSS, the Departments visited Jefferson Parish and interviewed many administrators, faculty, and students in May 2013. At the conclusion of the Departments' visit, JPPSS voluntarily agreed to resolve the investigation by entering into an agreement that includes school-specific and parish-wide remedial measures to address the United States' concerns.

The agreement, signed by the parties on July 9, 2014, will ensure that all students who reside in Jefferson Parish can enroll in school regardless of their or their parents' national origin or immigration status. The agreement also requires JPPSS to review and revise its policies and practices for communicating with national origin essential parents who have limited English proficiency to make sure that parents receive important information in a language they can understand. Additionally, JPPSS will review and revise its policies and practices to ensure that all complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, including allegations of harassment, are appropriately investigated and resolved.

For more information, please see this press release and the full agreement available in English and Spanish.

Summary in: Spanish.

Summary in: Arabic.

Summary in: Vietnamese.

On January 14, 2010, in the Northern District of New York, the Section moved to intervene in J.L. v. Mohawk Central School District. The lawsuit was filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of J.L., a 15-year-old student in the District. J.L. alleged that the District violated state and federal laws including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, both of which prohibit discrimination based on sex, including discrimination based on failure to conform to gender stereotypes. According to the United States' motion , J.L. failed to conform to gender stereotypes in both behavior and appearance. He exhibited feminine mannerisms, dyed his hair wore makeup and nail polish, and maintained predominantly female friendships. The alleged severe and pervasive student-on-student harassment based on sex escalated from derogatory name-calling to physical threats and violence. The United States further alleged that the District had knowledge of the harassment, but was deliberately indifferent in its failure to take timely, corrective action, and that the deliberate indifference restricted J.L.'s ability to fully enjoy the educational opportunities of his school. The District denied all allegations. Prior to the court ruling on the United States' intervention motion, an out-of-court settlement was reached among J.L., the District, and the United States. The court approved the settlement agreement on March 29, 2010. The agreement requires the District to (1) retain an expert consultant in the area of harassment and discrimination based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation to review the District's policies and procedures; (2) develop and implement a comprehensive plan for disseminating the District's harassment and discrimination policies and procedures; (3) retain an expert consultant to conduct annual training for faculty and staff, and students as deemed appropriate by the expert, on discrimination and harassment based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation; (4) maintain records of investigations and responses to allegations of harassment for five years; and (5) provide annual compliance reports to the United States and private plaintiffs. Lastly, $50,000.00 will be paid to J.L. and $25,000.00 in attorneys' fees will be paid to the New York Civil Liberties Foundation.

On May 5, 2006, Junior Does filed a complaint against the Allentown School District alleging that, as six- and seven-year-old students, they were sexually assaulted by another student in the bathrooms at Central Elementary School during the 2003-2004 school year. On April 21, 2009, Junior Does amended their complaint to include a sex discrimination claim pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and on July 10, 2009, the Division intervened. On August 3, 2011, Junior Does again amended their complaint to include allegations that a fifth student was sexually assaulted, adding another minor plaintiff as a party.

In the case, the Division alleged the following: that sexual assaults occurred on at least five separate occasions; that the district was made aware of each incident immediately after it occurred; and that despite this notice, the district did not take appropriate action, and in some circumstances took no action, to prevent the harassment from recurring. Furthermore, the department alleged that both before and after the sexual harassment of the students, the district failed to adopt and implement adequate and effective sexual harassment policies and procedure as required by federal law; had the district adopted and implemented such policies and procedures, the district would have prevented the continued sexual assault of students.

After extensive discovery, the Division and the school district negotiated a consent decree . The court approved the proposed consent decree on July 31, 2012. The consent decree provides for substantial systemic relief and requires the school district to take the following steps: develop and implement a comprehensive plan for addressing and preventing sexual harassment in all district schools; retain an expert consultant in the area of student-on-student harassment to draft and implement a sexual harassment policy and procedures; provide training to administrators, faculty, staff, students and parents on sex-based harassment; select qualified district and school-based equity coordinators to ensure proper implementation of the district's harassment policies and procedures and compliance with Title IX, including prompt investigation, resolution and reporting of sexual harassment complaints and allegations; create procedures for identifying, monitoring, and supervising students with a confirmed history of sexual harassment toward other students; develop and implement policies and procedures for communicating with outside agencies, such as police, hospital and child protection agencies, of allegations of sexual harassment in the district; and submit annual compliance reports to the Division.

On July 1, 2016, the Section and the United State Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas filed two statements of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with evaluating the Title IX sexual assault claims in T.F. v. Kansas State University and S.W. v. Kansas State University . In these cases, the plaintiffs, both students of Kansas State University (K-State), allege that K-State discriminated against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX when K-State allegedly refused to respond to or investigate their reports of sexual assault by K-State students during parties hosted at and by fraternities recognized and supported by K-State. In the statements of interest responding to K-State’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the United States advised the court that Title IX imposes an obligation on federally-funded schools to respond to reports of rape that occurred at off-campus school-recognized fraternity houses and events and to determine if a hostile educational environment exists in such school-recognized activities or other education programs or activities. The United States further argued that under the proper Title IX standards, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims for damages and equitable relief should be allowed to proceed. On March 14, 2017, after considering the parties pleadings and the United States’ statements of interest, the court denied K-State’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, holding that both plaintiffs had alleged the elements required to state a plausible Title IX harassment claim. Specifically, the court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that K-State had substantial control over the alleged assailants and the context of the assaults, which were so severe as to deny plaintiffs access to educational benefits and opportunities, and that K-State’s alleged deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ reports of rape made them “liable or vulnerable” to further harassment or assault.

Memorandum and Order - T.F. v. K-State       

Memorandum and Order - S.W. v. K-State

In this case, formerly known as Lau v. Nichols, the United States Supreme Court held that the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and its implementing regulations by failing to provide special programs designed to rectify the English language deficiencies of students who do not speak or understand English, or are of limited English-speaking ability, and by failing to provide these students with equal access to the instructional program. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). The Supreme Court remanded the case for the fashioning of appropriate relief. On October 22, 1976, the parties entered into a Consent Decree that incorporated a Master Plan that requires bilingual-bicultural education for the English Language Learner (ELL) students who speak Chinese, Filipino, and Spanish. Chinese and Spanish bilingual programs continue subsequent to the passage of California's Proposition 227. The Consent Decree also requires the provision of other special programs and English as a Second Language (ESL) for ELL students of other language groups, as well as the provision of bilingual instruction, whenever feasible. The Consent Decree calls for annual reporting to the Court by the SFUSD regarding its ELL programs and the establishment of a Bilingual Community Council (BCC) to assist the SFUSD in filing these annual reports.

On August 24, 2006, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to show cause why the Court should not relieve the SFUSD of responsibility for reporting under the extant Consent Decree. The United States filed a response to the show cause order that identified problems with the ELL programs and recommended continued reporting by the SFUSD, additional on-site visits of the ELL programs, and the development of an updated Master Plan for ELL programs. The SFUSD and the private plaintiffs filed responses agreeing to this approach for going forward. The Court continued the reporting obligations and assigned the case to an active judge. On May 1, 2007, the new judge held a status conference in which he agreed to let the parties continue their school visits and work collaboratively on developing an updated Master Plan. The United States' consultant and members of the BCC completed visits to twenty-four schools on May 18, 2007. The parties agreed to a new Master Plan that would replace the outdated plan and filed a stipulated application to modify the 1976 Consent Decree. On September 11, 2008, the Court approved the new Master Plan and entered an order modifying the 1976 Consent Decree.

The United States and the Private Plaintiffs then monitored SFUSD's implementation of the 2008 Master Plan through the District's annual reports, regular site visits, community meetings, and communications with parents and students. To resolve the United States' and Private Plaintiff's consistent concerns about SFUSD's compliance, the parties negotiated a Modified Consent Decree (MCD) . On June 24, 2015, the parties jointly filed a motion and supporting memo seeking court approval of the MCD. The MCD, approved by the court on June 29, 2015, requires SFUSD to, among other things: promptly identify, assess, and place EL students in effective EL programs; offer a range of EL programs and services to meet the needs of all EL students, including newcomers, students with disabilities, and long-term EL students; expand translation and interpretation services for LEP families; adequately train employees who serve EL students so that they can fulfill their roles; and conduct robust monitoring. The MCD also protects the educational rights of the district's most at-risk and vulnerable EL students who are learning in alternative education or juvenile justice settings. If SFUSD implements the MCD fully and in good faith, the MCD and this historic case are expected to end in the fall of 2018. For more information about the MCD, please see the June 24, 2015 press release . Translated copies of the MCD are linked here in Chinese , Spanish , Vietnamese , Filipino , and Arabic .

This statewide settlement resolved issues relating to the overrepresentation of black students in the mental retardation and emotional disturbance special education classifications and the underrepresentation of black students in the specific learning disabilities and gifted and talented special education classifications. This consent decree , approved by the court on August 30, 2000, involves special education issues that were raised as a result of information gathered during unitary status reviews in eleven desegregation cases pending before the United States District Court in the Middle District of Alabama. Parties to the decree include the United States, private plaintiffs, and the Alabama State Department of Education.

The settlement required the State of Alabama to undertake initiatives in providing teacher training, to establish a program to improve reading achievement, and to make changes to Alabama administrative law in the areas of pre-referral, referral, evaluation procedures, and eligibility criteria. This emphasis on pre-referral intervention services resulted in substantial changes over the six years of implementing the consent decree. There have been significant reductions in racial disparities in the special education classifications of mental retardation (MR), and disparities have been virtually eliminated in the classifications of emotional disturbance (ED) and specific learning disabilities (SLD). There also has been an overall decrease in the number of students classified as MR or ED, and increases in students classified as SLD. The number of black students classified as gifted also has increased.

The settlement also required reevaluation of certain categories of minority students who had been identified as MR. As a result, several hundred students who had been inappropriately placed as MR were exited from special education. These students were provided with appropriate supplemental services to help transition successfully into the general education program, and were carefully monitored during this process.

On February 12, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved a consent order filed by the Justice Department, together with private plaintiffs and the Calhoun County, Alabama School District, in this longstanding desegregation case. The order found that the district has met its desegregation obligations in certain areas and providing for additional, comprehensive relief in the areas of faculty and staff hiring and recruitment and student discipline and school climate.

In approving the consent order, the district court declared that the 9,200-student school district has eliminated the vestiges of prior segregation in the areas of student assignment, extracurricular activities, school facilities, and transportation, thereby ending the court's supervision in those areas. The order requires the district to take additional steps to reach full compliance, including adopting measures to promote racial diversity in its faculty and staff, expanding its use of positive behavioral supports and interventions throughout its schools, and revising its student discipline policies and procedures to ensure they are fair, non-discriminatory, and limit the use of exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions.

In this school desegregation case, the parties entered into a consent decree , which provided for the closure of two K-12 schools and the consolidation of the students into two central school zones. One of the K-12 schools to be closed had a virtually all-white student body and had never graduated a black student. The day after the decree was filed, the school board voted to rescind its consent. The Section filed a motion to enforce the consent decree , arguing that once the board had given its consent, granted authority to counsel to sign on its behalf, and jointly filed the consent decree, the board was bound by the terms of the consent decree.

At the same time, two groups moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of opposing the consent decree. The groups comprised parents, students, and other citizens from each of the two schools scheduled for closure. The Section filed briefs opposing both motions for intervention – one against the Mellow Valley School intervenors and one against the Bibb Graves School intervenors – arguing that the proposed intervenors did not express a cognizable interest in furthering desegregation, and, even if they had, the United States and private plaintiffs adequately represented any such interest.

On May 13, 2003, the district court accepted all of the Section's arguments and entered an order (1) denying the Board's motion to rescind its consent, (2) denying both motions to intervene, and (3) enforcing the consent decree. The parties worked to implement the consent decree, and the two schools were successfully closed prior to the beginning of the 2003-04 school year. The two groups of unsuccessful intervenors appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this matter involving the Lewiston, Maine school district, the United States reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs)–particularly among the district’s large population of Somalian refugees–as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On June 4, 2007, the school district and the United States entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The agreement requires the district to develop, among other things: standardized curricula for ELLs; adequate teacher training and collaborative opportunities; systematic monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of ELLs; and a comprehensive ELL program evaluation model.

The Section investigated complaints about whether (i) the Lewiston Public School District’s shortening school days for students with disabilities by placing them on an “abbreviated” school day schedule violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and (ii) the District’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). The investigation found that the District routinely shortened school days for students with disabilities because of behavior related to their disabilities without considering their individual needs or testing alternative interventions or supports to keep students in school for the full day.  The investigation further revealed that the District failed to provide EL students with the instruction and support needed to become proficient in English and participate equally in school.  On May 27, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the compliance issues identified by the United States, including: ensuring students with disabilities receive supports they need to remain in school for the full day; developing policies and procedures for non-discriminatory abbreviated school day placements; and ensuring that all special education personnel, school counselors, and school psychologists receive training on appropriately responding to disability-related behaviors. The agreement also requires the District to provide English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction to all of its EL students and targeted programming for those ELs with limited or interrupted formal education; fully staff its EL programs with ESL-certified teachers; provide training to principals and teachers; communicate effectively with Limited English Proficient parents about school activities; and monitor the EL program over time to evaluate its efficacy.  The agreement will remain in place for three school years.  For more information, please see this press release in  English , Somali , Swahili , French , Spanish , and Portuguese . Translated versions of the agreement are also available in Somali , Swahili , French , Spanish , and Portuguese .

This historic desegregation involving the St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) began in 1972.  The Section continues to monitor the SPLS’s compliance with a 1999 Agreement that set forth requirements to ameliorate the effects of segregation through voluntary interdistrict transfers, remedial programs, school improvement and accountability, and the provision of funds from the state to the SLPS.  This Agreement has been consensually modified by new orders and agreements in recent years, including a 2011 agreement that allowed for the use of desegregation funds for specific programs, such as magnet school transportation, principal leadership training, early childhood, and enhanced computing and technology in the SLPS.  Section 10 of the 1999 Agreement set aside funds for “construction and site acquisition costs to accommodate any reasonable anticipated net enrollment increase caused by any  reduction or elimination of the voluntary transfer plan.” 1999 Agreement, Section 10, at 12 .  While the parties anticipated in 1999 that the voluntary transfer program would continue for a number of years, Section 10 was designed to provide for SLPS’ capital needs if the transfer program ended and numerous students returned at one time to the SLPS.  Over the years, however, the assumptions underlying creation of the Section 10 fund did not come to pass, primarily as a result of population declines, the advent of charter schools, and the ongoing commitment by both city and county schools to the voluntary transfer program. Accordingly, in 2013, the court approved the parties’ agreement to allow the use of certain remedial funds set aside in the desegregation account to provide continued funding for the St. Louis Community Monitoring and Support Task Force.

On July 30, 2007, Kimberly Lopez filed a complaint against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) alleging her son was sexually assaulted by another student while riding a special education school bus operated by Metro. On April 30, 2008, Plaintiff amended her complaint to add a sex discrimination claim against Metro pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. Recognizing the United States’ substantial interest in ensuring recipients of federal funds do not discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX, the Court issued an order granting the United States Motion to Intervene and permitting the United States to file its complaint in intervention. In January 2009, the United States moved for summary judgment , and subsequently opposed Metro’s cross-motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Title IX claim and submitted a reply brief in support of its own motion. On July 7, 2009, the Court issued a memorandum opinion denying the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment but adopting the Section’s interpretation of Title IX in numerous key respects. On February 8, 2010, the parties entered into a consent decree that obligates the Nashville Public School District to take substantial steps to enhance the security of students with disabilities on its public school transportation system. These steps include staffing bus monitors to assist drivers on all special education buses; implementing comprehensive screening procedures to ensure that students with disabilities are not assigned to buses where they would be at risk of harassment; expediting the investigation of suspected acts of sexual harassment involving students with disabilities; and ensuring open lines of communication between transportation officials and school-based personnel. Metro also agreed to pay Plaintiff $1.475 million as part of the settlement.

The Section intervened in this same-sex peer harassment case alleging the school district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to respond appropriately to harassment of a student on the basis of sex. Specifically, the Section alleged in our complaint-in-intervention : from the eighth grade through the eleventh grade, Jeremy Lovins was subjected to harassment on the basis of sex (ostensibly because other students believed he was gay); Jeremy and his parents repeatedly informed school officials of the harassment but the harassment continued; and Jeremy was eventually subjected to an assault and forced to leave school because of the harassment. On July 31, 2000, the Court entered a consent decree settling the case

The consent decree included monetary relief for Mr. Lovins in the amount of $72,500 and injunctive relief. Under the consent decree, the school district agreed, among other things: to conduct a climate assessment of student-to-student and teacher-to-student relations within its schools; to develop a comprehensive plan to identify, prevent, and remedy harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation; to educate and train teachers, staff, and students about the operation of the policy and procedures; to maintain written records of complaints and investigations; and to file implementation reports with the Section and the court.

The two plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Sullivan County Board of Education (SCBE) violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to appropriately address known student-on-student harassment on the basis of race. Specifically, plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that both Michael and Marquita Madison, who are black, were subjected to ongoing racial harassment while attending Sullivan East High School (East). This harassment included a constant barrage of racial slurs, some made within earshot of teachers, racially derogatory graffiti on walls and desks, and racially offensive paraphernalia. Though school officials knew or should have known of the harassment, they failed to take appropriate steps to address it. Marquita eventually transferred to another school after her sophomore year. Michael fell victim to a racially-motivated assault outside the school cafeteria his junior year. He did not return to East after the assault and finished high school on homebound studies.

The Section filed its complaint-in-intervention , motion to intervene , and supporting memorandum in November 2000. In our complaint-in-intervention, we sought monetary relief for the plaintiffs and injunctive relief, such as policies and procedures to prevent or address such harassment in the future. The court granted the Section's intervention on November 28, 2000. The parties conducted discovery in 2001 and early 2002. Following discovery, the parties negotiated a consent order and monetary settlement of the Title VI and equal protection claims. Under the consent order , which was approved by the Court on October 16, 2002, the school system agreed to retain an expert to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent, identify, and remedy harassment and discrimination; provide an education and training program for teachers, staff, and students about the school district's policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination; and maintain written records of each harassment allegation received, investigation conducted and corrective action taken by the district to ensure a consistent and effective review of allegations. For more details about the settlement, please see the press release linked here .

On June 12, 2023, the Section entered into a  settlement agreement  with the Madison County School District to address complaints of race-based harassment in its schools. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, based on allegations that the school district denied students equal protection of the laws based on their race. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will undertake significant institutional reforms. The district will, among other steps: revise its anti-discrimination policies and procedures; create three new central office positions to oversee effective handling of complaints of race discrimination; update its racial harassment and discipline policies to more accurately track and consistently respond to complaints of race-based harassment; train staff on how to identify, investigate, and respond to complaints of racial harassment and discriminatory discipline practices; inform students and parents of how to report harassment and discrimination; update its centralized, electronic reporting system to track and manage complaints and the district’s response to complaints; implement focus groups, conduct surveys, training and educational events on identifying and preventing race discrimination, including discriminatory harassment; and analyze and review its discipline data and amend its policies to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of discipline policies. For more information, please see this  letter  to the District and  press release .

In this matter involving the Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School of Excellence (“the School”), the Section and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts examined whether the School was adequately serving its English Learner (EL) students, including EL students with disabilities, as required by Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On March 10, 2020, the School and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the issues identified by the United States and ensure the School’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the School to: provide all EL students – who make up nearly a quarter of the School’s population – with an adequate amount of daily English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction taught by an ESL-certified teacher; actively recruit qualified, certified staff for ESL, core content area, and special education teaching positions; ensure all ELs with disabilities receive both ESL and special education services unless their parents/guardians voluntarily and knowingly waive one or both services; train special education and ESL-certified teachers who work with EL students with disabilities on how to provide services to ELs with disabilities; communicate with Limited English Proficient parents about essential school information in a language they understand; and properly monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its EL program over time.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place through the end of the 2021-22 school year. 

Private plaintiffs filed this school desegregation case in 1965; the United States intervened later that year. On July 31, 1969, the Court approved the District's 1969-70 Revised Desegregation Plan, which was subsequently modified with the court's approval in 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975, and 1978. In 2007, the United States initiated a review of the District's compliance with the court's desegregation orders and applicable federal law. This review resulted in the filing of negotiated consent order, which was approved by the court on February 5, 2009. On July 27, 2012, the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order, which was granted on August 21, 2012. On July 3, 2013, the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order, which was granted on July 12, 2013 . The consent order requires the district to close four of its seven elementary schools, including three racially identifiable schools; construct a new school; modify its attendance zones; and implement a controlled choice program at two of its elementary schools. The consent order also will require the district to continue certain intra-district transfers that have the effect of furthering the desegregation of the district's schools. On March 5, 2014, the court approved amendments to the July 12, 2013 consent order, which extended the timeline for implementing the elementary desegregation plan and established monitoring and reporting requirements sought by the United States.  On October 11, 2023, the court declared the district had met its desegregation obligations in several areas of operations, including staff assignment, facilities, transportation and extracurricular activities, and approved a negotiated consent decree that requires the district to take measures to desegregate its gifted program and advanced and dual enrollment courses.  The consent order also requires the district to implement changes to its student discipline policies designed to reduce racial disparities in discipline and eliminate the use of corporal punishment.

In this matter involving the Mercer County School District in West Virginia, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 ("EEOA"). After determining that the school district was not complying with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the school district on January 31, 2012. This agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: timely identify and assess all students with a primary or home language other than English; serve ELLs with appropriate instruction; provide adequate teacher training; and carefully monitor the academic progress of current and former ELLs.

On September 26, 2016, the Division filed a Statement of Interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims under Title VI, its implementing regulations, and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) in Methelus v. School Board of Collier County .  The plaintiffs filed on behalf of their newly-arrived, foreign-born English Language Learner (ELL) children ages 15-17, arguing that the Collier County School Board (Board) has violated the EEOA and Title VI by refusing to enroll these children in its regular high schools and diverting some to enroll in Adult English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs that charge a fee and do not earn credit toward a high school diploma.  Among other claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the Board’s practices did not constitute “appropriate action to overcome language barriers” under Section 1703(f) of the EEOA and intentionally discriminated against these foreign-born, ELL children on the basis for their national origin in violation of Title VI.  The Board moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims in their Amended Complaint.  The United States’ Statement of Interest , filed in response to the motion to dismiss, sets forth the legal standards applicable to the claim under Section 1703(f) of the EEOA, including the Castaneda v. Pickard standards binding on the Florida federal court. The filing explains why under those standards the plaintiffs adequately pled facts supporting a plausible Section 1703(f) claim.  The filing also sets forth the well-established Arlington Heights factors for evaluating intentional discrimination claims under Title VI, explaining how the plaintiffs’ factual allegations addressed many of these factors and sufficed to state a plausible Title VI claim.

On April 24, 2013, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Metropolitan School District of Decatur Township, Indiana to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment in schools. The agreement resolved the Section's review of the district's policies and practices related to harassment and bullying, which was initiated in June 2011 after reports of possible racial harassment at a district school. The agreement requires the district to take a number of steps to prevent and address harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion and disability, and to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. These steps include forming a district-wide anti-harassment task force to review and revise the district's policies and procedures related to harassment, bullying, and discipline; establishing a cohesive process for receiving, investigating and monitoring complaints of harassment and bullying, enabling the district to track repeated incidents involving individual students or groups targeted for their membership in a protected class; and providing training, professional development and school climate assessments for both students and staff at two of the district's schools. For more information, please see this press release .

On November 18, 1963, private plaintiffs filed this case complaining that the Gadsden City Board of Education was maintaining a segregated school system. On May 9, 1966, the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring the school system into conformity with federal constitutional and statutory provisions.

Over the years, the court issued a series of orders aimed at eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination and completely desegregating the school system. In July 2003, the court approved the parties' proposed consent order that required the school district to take remedial actions in the areas of student assignment, personnel assignment, facilities, and quality of education. The consent order required the district to assign students randomly to classrooms and to enforce attendance zone lines strictly. With respect to personnel assignment, the consent order required the district to increase efforts to recruit minority teachers and to ensure that each school had a faculty whose racial diversity was reflective of the district-wide faculty. The consent order also required the district to make substantial improvements to its secondary schools so that these facilities were all of comparable quality. Finally, with respect to quality of education, the consent order required the district to equalize its offering of and access to advanced and honor classes among secondary schools. Having fulfilled these obligations, the district was declared unitary on August 26, 2005.

In this long-standing school desegregation case, the Jackson-Madison County School Board filed a motion for unitary status in December 1999, asserting that it had complied in good faith with prior desegregation decrees and had eliminated the vestiges of segregation to the extent practicable. The Section and the private plaintiffs opposed the board's motion for unitary status. The parties engaged in extensive negotiations, which resulted in an agreement shortly before trial in November 2000.

The agreement, which the court approved in December 2000, permits the board to proceed with its plan to construct five new schools and implement revised student attendance zones over the next four years. The agreement includes numerous measures that will further desegregation by voluntary means, including the construction of magnet schools and the introduction of other school choice options. The board is also required to take additional remedial action in faculty and staff assignments, and to encourage minority student participation in all programs and activities. Implementation and monitoring of the agreement is ongoing

Parents of students with disabilities who allege that their children were not properly identified, evaluated, and provided with special education services filed a class action lawsuit against the Newark Public Schools, the State of New Jersey, and several state officials. The lawsuit alleges that Newark does not have adequate systems in place to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and that New Jersey has violated its obligation to supervise local implementation of IDEA requirements.

In its motion to dismiss, New Jersey raised a constitutional challenge to the IDEA, claiming that the Eleventh Amendment afforded it immunity against a private lawsuit to enforce the IDEA. The Section sought and was granted intervention to defend the constitutionality of the IDEA. In its brief , the Section argued that New Jersey had agreed to comply with the IDEA and waive its sovereign immunity when it accepted federal IDEA funds to defray the cost of educating students with disabilities. In the alternative, the Section argued that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court accepted both arguments and denied the State's motion to dismiss. The defendants appealed the denials of their motions to dismiss, and the Appellate Section defended the IDEA's constitutionality on appeal. On September 16, 2003, the Third Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's holding that the State of New Jersey had waived its sovereign immunity.

In this matter involving the Nashua School District (“the District”) in New Hampshire, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Hampshire investigated whether the District’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The investigation revealed that the District failed to provide EL students with the instruction and support they need to become proficient in English and participate equally in school.  On May 24, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to provide English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction to all of its EL students, fully staff its EL programs with ESL-certified teachers, provide training to principals and core academic teachers of EL students, communicate effectively with Limited English Proficient parents about school activities, and monitor the EL program over time to evaluate its efficacy.  The agreement will remain in place for three school years. For more information, please see this press release in English , Spanish , and Portuguese .

Settlement Agreement: Español (Spanish) | Português (Portuguese)      

The United States initiated this litigation against the Nettleton Line Consolidated School District on September 8, 1969, and the court subsequently approved consent decrees requiring the District to desegregate on December 8, 1969 and June 19, 1970 .  On August 8, 2011 , following negotiations between the United States and the District, the court issued a consent order requiring the District to revise its policies and procedures and to terminate its race-based selection and election procedures for extracurricular activities (e.g., elections for class officers, homecoming court, and class superlatives).  After the United States completed a review of the District’s operations and compliance with the Court’s orders, on September 2, 2020 the court approved an additional consent order .  The 2020 Consent Order granted partial unitary status and found that the District had eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation in the areas of student assignment, staff, extracurricular activities, and facilities.  The 2020 Consent Order also required the District to complete more work to demonstrate that it has eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation in the areas of faculty and transportation.  Therefore, the 2020 Consent Order requires the District to take steps to (i) increase its recruitment of black applicants for teacher vacancies; (ii) conduct its hiring with the goal of eliminating any real or perceived racial barriers in hiring; (iii) retain qualified, black faculty members who are employed by the District; (iv) eliminate overlapping or duplicative bus routes; and (v) eliminate or reduce the number of racially identifiable bus routes or at least mitigate the disparities between the percentages of black and white students assigned to each racially identifiable bus.  The District may file a motion with the court for full or partial dismissal of the case after three full school years of compliance with the relevant provisions of the 2020 Consent Order .

In this matter involving the Newark Public Schools (“the District”), the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey examined whether the District’s English Learner (“EL”) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  The United States initiated its investigation in response to a complaint alleging that the District was failing to appropriately communicate with parents who have limited proficiency in English (“LEP parents”).  In addition to corroborating the District’s LEP parent communications failures, the United States found  that the District failed to hire and retain enough qualified teachers to support its program, resulting in limited instruction time for some students, and for others, no language services at all.  On September 1, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the noncompliant conditions identified by the United States and ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; and locate and re-offer services to EL students who were exited improperly from the District’s programs without achieving English proficiency.  The agreement also requires the District to ensure that English as a Second Language (“ESL”) classes and bilingual classes are taught by ESL-certified and bilingual-endorsed teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the District’s EL programs; ensure meaningful communication with LEP parents about District and school programs and activities; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL programs over time.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place for at least three school years until the District has fully complied with its obligations. Translations of the Agreement are available in Spanish , French , Haitian Creole , and Portuguese . For more information, please see press releases available in English , Spanish , Portuguese , Haitian Creole , and French .

On September 15, 2022, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the district to resolve the Section’s investigation of the district’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA).  The Section opened the investigation in 2020, after the U.S. Department of Justice received a complaint alleging that the district violated the EEOA by failing to communicate effectively with K’iche’-speaking Limited English Proficient parents and denying K’iche’-speaking EL students equal educational opportunities.

Through its investigation, the Section identified that the district: (1) failed to communicate adequately with Limited English Proficient parents, including K’iche’ speakers, about school-related programs and activities; (2) did not adequately train its faculty on providing appropriate services to its EL students, including training to address the specific needs of K’iche’ speakers to overcome language barriers; and (3) did not adequately evaluate its EL programs for effectiveness, including assessing the performance of K’iche’-speaking EL students to determine if they are overcoming language barriers.

The agreement requires, among other things, that the district implement effective measures to correctly identify the languages spoken by students and parents/guardians, so that school staff do not assume K’iche’ speakers are native Spanish speakers based on their country of origin.  The district also agreed to improve its practices and professional development to address the specific needs of EL students who speak K’iche’ so that they can access the same educational opportunities as other students in the district.  For more information on this settlement, please see this press release  (in Spanish , Portuguese , and Cape Verdean Creole ).

On September 28, 2012, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division entered into a settlement agreement with the Northeastern Local School District (NELSD) in Springfield, Ohio, to resolve allegations of racial harassment of African-American students in the district.

In December 2011, the Section received a complaint alleging incidents of racial harassment, including race-based death threats, directed at an African-American student enrolled at Kenton Ridge High School in NELSD. The Section's investigation of the complaint revealed that the student had been subjected to significant harassment based on race and retaliation for reporting the harassment of which the District knew or should have known. In violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the District failed to investigate the alleged harassment and retaliation adequately, address it effectively, and prevent it from recurring. Because of the severe, pervasive, and persistent harassment and retaliation, the student was afraid to go to school and eventually left the district out of fear for her own safety. The investigation also revealed that other African-American students in the district had experienced racial harassment and retaliation for reporting racial harassment.

Under the terms of the agreement, the district agreed to take a variety of steps to prevent racial harassment at all of its schools, to respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and to eliminate the hostile environment resulting from harassment. These steps include revising policies and procedures for handling racial harassment complaints; conducting trainings for faculty, staff, students, and parents; and reporting data to the Department of Justice for three years. For more information, please see this press release .

On December 31, 2020 the Section entered into a settlement agreement  with the North Gibson School Corporation in Princeton, Indiana to address and prevent the discriminatory secluding and restraining of students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into a complaint that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained students with emotional and behavioral disabilities in the district’s self-contained classrooms. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will, among other things: change its policies to prohibit use of seclusion rooms; report all instances of restraint and review whether they were justified; take steps to avoid placing students with emotional and behavioral disabilities on an abbreviated school day or homebound instruction and document those steps; create and implement a procedure for handling complaints of disability discrimination; provide appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and appoint an Intervention Coordinator to ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this press release .

In this matter involving the North Plainfield, New Jersey school district, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs), as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; the extent to which the district's school libraries and media centers are accessible to ELLs; and the academic support provided by the district to ELLs who enroll in general education classes.  The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on September 3, 2004, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement that ended on September 3, 2007.

On December 20, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Okaloosa County School District in Fort Walton Beach, Florida to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities and the district’s responses to allegations of physical and verbal abuse. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the school district engaged in improper seclusion and restraint practices and failed to appropriately respond to known physical and verbal abuse of students. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: continue to prohibit the use of seclusion; limit its use of restraint; clarify and improve crisis response team procedures and post-restraint procedures; report all instances of restraint and evaluate if they were justified and complied with district policy; reform district complaint procedures and improve internal district investigations into allegations of employee abuse or improper use of restraint or seclusion; develop and deliver appropriate trainings for personnel who restrain students and personnel who review restraint reports; and deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement. For more information, please see this letter and press release .

In this matter involving Old Dominion University (ODU) in Norfolk, Virginia, the Section conducted an investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  The Section received a complaint alleging that ODU discriminated and retaliated against a graduate student based on her disability and her related request for acknowledgement of her right to reasonable modifications of policy.  The Section found that, in a series of retaliatory acts, ODU terminated the student’s relationship with her professor-advisor and his research lab, withdrew her from a professional conference where she was scheduled to present, and forced her to change her graduate course of study.  On February 3, 2021, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with ODU to ensure that the University provides reasonable modifications of policy for students with disabilities.  The agreement requires that ODU develop and disseminate a retaliation policy; train staff and faculty on the requirements of the ADA and Section 504; and provide compliance reports to DOJ.  In addition, under the agreement ODU will pay the complainant $40,000 in compensatory damages. For more information, please see this press release .

This religious discrimination case arose after the principal of an elementary school in New Jersey prohibited an eight-year-old girl from singing a Christian song in a voluntary after-school talent show. On May 20, 2005, the student’s parents filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the school violated her constitutional rights by censoring her speech. The school defended the censorship by asserting that (1) the song had an overtly religious and proselytizing message and (2) permitting the song would have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

On June 19, 2006, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of the student’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the school engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by censoring her performance based solely on the religious perspective of her song. The brief also contended that the school’s Establishment Clause justification was unavailing because the song clearly represented the student’s expression, not the school’s.

On December 11, 2006, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment. In its opinion , the court held that the school’s censorship of “Awesome God” constituted unlawful viewpoint discrimination because the song conformed to the talent show guidelines and the school permitted other acts with religious and “proselytizing” content. The court found that the school did not have “a legitimate pedagogical concern in distancing itself from proselytizing religious speech.” The court further ruled that the school’s Establishment Clause concerns could not justify censoring the plaintiff’s song because the performances in the talent show did not represent school-sponsored speech.

On April 12, 2011, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reached a resolution agreement with the Owatonna Public School District ("District") in Owatonna, Minnesota, to resolve a complaint regarding the student-on-student harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students based on their race and national-origin.

The complaint arose from a November 2009 fight between several white and Somali-American students at Owatonna High School and alleged severe and pervasive harassment. Following DOJ's and OCR's investigation, the Section and OCR worked with the school district to resolve the complaint. The departments gathered evidence indicating that the district meted out disproportionate discipline for the students involved in the November 2009 incident and that the district's policies, procedures and trainings were not adequately addressing harassment against Somali-American students.

The District took affirmative steps to address the harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students, and voluntarily entered into the resolution agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the District will take all reasonable steps to ensure that all students enrolled in the district are not subject to harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, and to respond promptly and appropriately to all reports of harassment. To that end, the District has agreed to improve its policies and procedures concerning harassment and discipline as necessary to make them effectively protect students from racial or national origin-based harassment. For more information, please see this press release .

This case involves religious harassment by students against a Jewish public school teacher in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Mr. Owen, a veteran teacher of more than 30 years, filed his lawsuit in federal district court in March 2000 after an investigation by the Detroit office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that his complaint had merit. The United States intervened in October 2000, alleging that the L'Anse Area Schools subjected Mr. Owen to religious harassment while he was employed by the school district. The United States alleged that Mr. Owen had been the target of numerous incidents of anti-Semitic harassment by his students, including the drawing and etching of swastikas and hate messages such as "Die Jews," "Kill Owen," "KKK," and "White Power" in and around his classroom on multiple occasions and the placement of a hangman's noose on his classroom door. The United States alleged that the school district failed to take effective measures to remedy the harassment and to keep it from recurring despite Mr. Owen's repeated complaints. Further, the United States alleged that as a result of the harassment, Mr. Owen was forced to take an extended medical leave and ultimately retire from the school district.

Following discovery and an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment by the school district, the parties entered mediation, reaching a settlement agreement in March 2002. Under the agreement , which the district court approved on April 11, 2002, Mr. Owen was paid $265,000. The agreement also required the school district to review and revise its policies ; train its employees to recognize, investigate and address harassment and discrimination; and educate its students about the inappropriateness of harassment and discrimination. In addition, the agreement required the district’s faculty and staff to report actual or suspected incidents of harassment or discrimination to appropriate school officials. The Justice Department monitored the school district's compliance with the settlement agreement for three years, and the case was dismissed on December 15, 2005.

In September and November 2011, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice notified the School District of Palm Beach County that it had received complaints regarding the District's enrollment and registration practices, as well as its practices of administering school discipline. The Division then conducted an investigation, including reviewing documents and data; conducting a site visit that included tours of schools and interviews with Principals, Area Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, District Office staff, the School District of Palm Beach County Police Department, and the Superintendent; meeting with community members and local stakeholders; and reviewing and providing comments regarding the District's enrollment and discipline policies. The United States conducted its investigation with the full cooperation of the District.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the United States and the District engaged in extensive negotiations, resulting in a settlement agreement signed by the Parties on February 26, 2013. Under the settlement agreement, the district will enroll all area students regardless of background and will provide translation and interpretation services throughout the registration process. The district will also limit the use of disciplinary measures that remove students from the classroom and implement behavior management and discipline practices that support and protect students. Among other things, the agreement requires that ELL students and parents who are limited English proficient receive translation and interpretation services throughout the enrollment and discipline processes; expands the use of language-accessible positive behavior interventions and supports ("PBIS"); places limits on the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; establishes clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; requires school law enforcement officers to communicate with students in a language the student understands, including by securing an interpreter when appropriate; requires providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and requires expanding data-driven monitoring and accountability systems. On July 25, 2016, the parties agreed to an eighteen month extension of the Agreement . 

On March 5, 2024, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Pasco County School District in Pasco County, Florida to resolve the department’s investigation into alleged discrimination against students with disabilities in school discipline, threat assessment practices and referrals of students to law enforcement. The agreement followed an investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The investigation found that the district routinely suspended students or called police for disability-related behavior that could have been addressed through proper support and de-escalation. The investigation also found problems with how the district conducted threat assessments (a process to identify, evaluate and respond to potential school security concerns). When these assessments involved students with disabilities, the district systematically failed to consider the relationship between a student’s disability and their behavior, and whether appropriate support for the student would address the behavior that prompted the assessment. Instead, the district often unnecessarily referred students to law enforcement to be arrested or to start the process for an involuntary admission into a mental health facility under Florida’s Baker Act. 

Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: ensure that personnel accurately assess disability-related behaviors, identify appropriate interventions, and monitor their implementation; hire a consultant who will assist in updating policies and practices; update its student code of conduct, threat assessment process, and law enforcement referral process to ensure that the district is adequately considering disability-related behaviors; improve data collection and analysis and regularly evaluate data to ensure students with disabilities do not face discrimination as a result of the district’s discipline, threat assessment and law enforcement referral practices. The Section will monitor the district’s implementation of the agreement and will also continue to monitor and enforce an ongoing desegregation order that covers the district.

For more information, please see this letter , press release ( español ), and summary of the settlement agreement .

In this matter involving sex discrimination, several high school girls and their representatives filed a complaint alleging that the South Dakota High School Activities Association (SDHSAA) violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the SDHSAA discriminated against female athletes by requiring girls to play certain sports (basketball and volleyball) in disadvantageous seasons. Playing in disadvantageous seasons can result in substantial harms that deny female high school athletes equal athletic opportunities, including, among others, the ability to participate in interstate competition and club competition, the opportunity to be recruited for collegiate-level sports programs, and the opportunity to have the same number of games and practices as similarly-situated boys' sports teams.

On October 17, 2000, the Department was granted leave to intervene in the lawsuit as a plaintiff-party in support of the high school girls. Subsequently, the SDHSAA moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether the association was subject to Title IX and whether it is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before any further briefing was completed, however, the parties agreed to engage in mediation and ultimately reached a settlement. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court entered a Consent Order on December 5, 2000, requiring the SDHSAA to schedule girls' high school volleyball during the traditional fall season and girls' high school basketball during the traditional winter season beginning with the 2002-03 school year. The SDHSAA submitted a detailed plan which was subsequently agreed to by the plaintiff-parties and approved by the Court.

In June of 2002 and shortly before the season switch was to take place, a group of parents and students filed a separate lawsuit in state court that was removed to federal court, Hoffman v. South Dakota High Sch. Activities Ass'n , C.A. No. 02-4127 (D. S.D.), seeking to challenge the Consent Order entered in the Pedersen case, or in the alternative, to delay the season switch for four more years. The Hoffman plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the season switch immediately. The Department moved to intervene in the lawsuit as a defendant to uphold the prior Consent Order entered in the Pedersen case and the district court granted the Department's motion to intervene. The Department also filed a motion to dismiss the Hoffman lawsuit on procedural grounds that the district court held in abeyance until after the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Hoffman case at which the Department presented evidence. Shortly thereafter, the district court issued an opinion denying the Hoffman plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 22, 2003, the district court granted the Department's motion to dismiss and dismissed the Hoffman lawsuit with prejudice.

In this matter involving the Plainfield, New Jersey School District, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs), as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; the extent to which the district's school libraries and media centers are accessible to ELLs; and the academic support provided by the district to ELLs who enroll in general education classes. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on June 30, 2003, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure that it complies with the EEOA. The district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement that ended on June 30, 2006.

In April 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York alleging, inter alia, that the Indian River Central School District, its Board of Education, and eight of its employees violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. On June 11, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX claims. On August 13, 2010, the United States filed a motion seeking leave to participate as amicus curiae in order to provide the court with the proper legal standards governing harassment on the basis of sex under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The United States argues in its amicus brief that harassment based on sex stereotyping is a legally cognizable claim under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause; that sexual orientation harassment does not preclude a harassment claim based on non-conformity to sex stereotypes; and that a hostile environment claim in primary and secondary schools can span classes, grades, and schools.

In this matter involving the Prince William County School District, the Section conducted a compliance review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and other services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On September 5, 2013, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps the district will take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure compliance with the EEOA. Among other things, the agreement requires the district to: provide all ELL students with adequate English Language Development and sheltered content instruction by qualified ELL teachers; ensure that ELL teachers and administrators receive appropriate training; monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its ELL programs; modify its enrollment and registration practices to ensure that students have access to educational programs regardless of race, national origin, or immigration status; provide ELL students and Limited English Proficient parents meaningful access to district and school-level information, such as discipline and special education forms and meetings; and take measures to ensure discipline is administered in a nondiscriminatory way, such as instituting cultural responsiveness training for teachers. The district-wide review and agreement grew out of an investigation of a complaint regarding the Fred Lynn Middle School. That investigation resulted in a 2010 agreement requiring remedial measures at that school, which was later amended by a 2011 agreement . This school and all others in the district are now subject to the 2013 agreement , which requires the district to report to the Section on the agreement's implementation through 2016.

In this matter involving the Providence Public Schools (“the District”) and the Rhode Island Department of Education (“RIDE”), the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Rhode Island examined whether the District was identifying and serving its approximately 8,000 English Learner (“EL”) students as required by Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On August 9, 2018, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the noncompliant conditions identified by the United States and to ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; ensure that the English as a Second Language (“ESL”) components of its EL program are taught by ESL-certified teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the District’s EL programs; ensure meaningful communication with Limited English Proficient parents about District and school programs and activities; provide equal opportunities for EL students to participate in specialized programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  On November 1, 2019, RIDE took control over the District, and on December 19, 2019, the parties agreed that the 2018 EL agreement would be binding upon both the District and RIDE.  On September 29, 2021, the parties executed a letter agreement , which modifies and extends the 2018 EL settlement agreement through at least the 2022-2023 school year.

2021 Letter Agreement: English  |  Español (Spanish)  | العربية (Arabic) | ខ្មែរ (Khmer) |  Kiswahili (Swahili)

In this peer-on-peer sexual harassment case, a student alleged his rights were violated under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the student contended the school district failed to take adequate steps to protect him from an ongoing campaign of sexual harassment by his peers.

The harassment included: three written death threats, repeated and unwanted sexual contact, offensive and hostile verbal abuse, and other acts involving intimidation and humiliation.

In response to defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the Section submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiff. In this brief, the Section argued a Title IX claim was appropriate because of the nature and severity of harassment involving conduct of a sexual nature. Furthermore, the Section argued the student's Equal Protection claim, challenging discrimination based on his actual or perceived sexual orientation, should not be dismissed. Following the amicus participation of the Section and mediation between the plaintiff and defendants, the case settled. In addition to monetary relief for the plaintiff, the school district modified its sexual harassment policies, applicable to both students and employees, to prohibit discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. The modified policies also describe the school district's responsibilities and the recourse available to victims of discrimination.

On August 19, 2024, the Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Rinderle, et al. v. Cobb County School District, et al. The plaintiffs are students and current and former educators in the District who alleged that the District’s implementation of policies prohibiting employees from using classroom instruction time to espouse personal political beliefs concerning “divisive concepts” violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The United States’ brief sets out the applicable legal standards for private retaliation claims for damages under Title IX. The brief then explains how, when assessing whether a plaintiff alleging retaliation under Title IX had a reasonable, good faith belief that a hostile educational environment based on sex existed, the Court should consider as part of the totality of the circumstances the alleged effect of the District’s policies on the educational environment.

In this matter involving the Robertson County Schools in Tennessee, the United States reviewed the status of the District's compliance with its desegregation obligations as a former de jure segregated public school system. The Section determined that the district had not complied with its desegregation obligations in the areas of student assignment and school construction. In its letter of September 5, 2014 , the Section identified a series of district decisions that, over decades, impeded desegregation by building and expanding almost all-white schools while leaving African-American students disproportionately in overcrowded schools with portable classrooms. In February, 2015, the United States and the district entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the district's noncompliance with federal law. The agreement requires the district to: assign students and construct and maintain schools in a desegregated and nondiscriminatory manner; implement a new elementary school plan that furthers desegregation; eliminate overcrowding at predominately minority schools; develop a secondary school student assignment plan that will further desegregation; and provide cultural sensitivity and competency training for teachers and staff. On August 4, 2015, the United States and the district entered into another settlement agreement to further desegregation in the secondary schools through a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) magnet program and attendance zone line changes. For more information about the February 2015 agreement, please see this press release . For more information about the August 2015 agreement, please see this press release .

On August 8, 2023, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Idaho filed a  statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho in  Roe, et. al. v. Critchfield, et. al .  The plaintiffs in this case are transgender students attending K-12 public schools in Idaho who are challenging S.B. 1100, a state law that prohibits transgender students from using public school facilities, including restrooms and changing facilities, consistent with their gender identity.  The United States’ brief provides its view that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Title IX and Equal Protection Clause claims.   

In this matter involving the Rowan-Salisbury School System (“the District”) in North Carolina, the Section investigated whether the District’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The investigation found system-wide failures to provide these students with the instruction and support they need to learn English and fully participate in school.  On June 17, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to increase language instruction for all EL students, including those with disabilities, so they can become fluent in English.  The District will also train its teachers and administrators on how to support EL students in academic subjects such as math, science, and social studies.  The District will continue to improve its translation and interpretation services for Limited English Proficient parents so all parents can fully participate in their children’s education.  The agreement will remain in place for three school years.  For more information, please see this press release in English and Spanish .

On December 15, 2022, the Educational Opportunities Section along with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California entered into an agreement with the San Bernardino City Unified School District resolving a multi-year investigation of the district’s English learner program under Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. During the investigation, the United States found that the district failed to offer adequate instruction to English learners, in either the English language or in core content areas like math, science and social studies. In addition, the United States identified problems with the special education evaluations conducted by the district and the services offered to English learners with disabilities. The United States also found that English learners did not have equal access to the district’s gifted programs, and advanced coursework. In the out-of-court settlement agreement the district will ensure that students receive adequate English language instruction from trained and certified personnel. It will train core content teachers on how to work with English learners, and it will update its special education policies and trainings to meet the needs of English learners with disabilities. In addition, the district will take steps to improve access to gifted and advanced programs for English learners. The agreement will remain in place for three years. For more information please see this press release in English and Spanish ( español ).

On June 29, 2020, the Educational Opportunities Section and United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California initiated a Title IX compliance review of San José State University (“SJSU”).  The Department’s investigation principally focused on SJSU’s response to reports of sexual harassment, including sexual assault, by an athletic trainer spanning more than a decade.  The Department also investigated reports of retaliation against two SJSU Athletics Department employees.  After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of SJSU’s policies, grievance procedures, training, and response to reports of sexual harassment and retaliation, the Department concluded that SJSU violated Title IX.

On September 21, 2021, the Department reached a resolution agreement with SJSU to address its noncompliance under Title IX and issued a letter  summarizing the Title IX violations.  Under the terms of the agreement, SJSU agreed to take significant steps including, among others: providing resources to the Title IX Office; publicizing Title IX policies and protocols and improving SJSU’s response to complaints of sex discrimination; developing informational materials to educate the SJSU community how to report Title IX concerns; delivering training to student-athletes and SJSU Athletics employees on giving and receiving informed consent for medical treatments and athletic training services; and providing supportive measures and remedies to student-athletes who were sexually harassed by the athletic trainer.  The agreement also requires SJSU to pay a total of $1.625 million in financial relief to individuals who were sexually harassed by the athletic trainer and participated in the Department’s or SJSU’s investigations.  The Department will carefully monitor the University’s implementation of the agreement, which will remain in place through the 2024-2025 academic year.  For more information, please see the press release .   

The Tri-Creek Corporation School District in Indiana had an attendance policy that allowed for only one day of excused absences for religious observance. After a student missed more than one day for religious worship, the District’s attendance policy stated that the student would be given an unexcused absence and subjected to various sanctions including loss of academic credit, inability to make up work, and suspension. The policy also stated that legal action may be taken against the parent.

After receiving a complaint about the enforcement of Tri-Creek’s policy, the United States intervened in the case on behalf of Ruth Scheidt and her son, M.S., both adherents to the religious tenets of the United Church of God. During the 2004-05 school year, M.S. was given eight unexcused absences for documented religious attendance; teachers failed to allow him to make up classwork and the district threatened expulsion and legal action, including the filing of educational neglect charges against Ms. Scheidt. On August 10, 2005, the Section filed a brief asserting that Tri-Creek’s attendance policy violated Ms. Scheidt and her son’s right to exercise their religion freely, and Ms. Scheidt’s right to raise her son consistent with her religious beliefs.

Shortly after the Section's intervention, the District and the plaintiffs reached a settlement that: (1) absences for religious observances will be recorded as “excused” and credit given for timely make-up work; and (2) school attendance policies will be revised to accommodate religious observances. Unlike in the past, there is now no limit on the number of excused absences a student may receive for religious observance.

In this race discrimination case, the plaintiffs sued the University of South Florida (USF), alleging that it had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by retaliating against black players on the USF women's basketball team who had complained to university officials about discriminatory treatment by the head coach. At the summary judgment stage, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that Title VI prohibits retaliation against individuals who complain of racially discriminatory treatment, and that this prohibition is necessary to protect the victims of racial discrimination and concerned third parties who come forward with their complaints. Prior to the court ruling on the summary judgment motion, the parties settled the case.

On January 30, 1970, the Court ordered Defendants, including the Concordia Parish School Board, to adopt a desegregation plan.  Concordia Parish School District (“District”) is still operating under the requirements of this 1970 federal desegregation order and further orders mandating the desegregation of the District.  A January 4, 2013 consent order addressed a new charter school’s obligations to comply with the court’s orders in the case and take measures to ensure equal access to the school.

A review of the Somerville School District in Massachusetts concerning the instruction and services provided to English Language Learners (ELLs) revealed the school district was not comporting with the requirements of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On November 25, 2008, the Section and the Somerville School District entered into a settlement agreement addressing concerns raised by the Section including specific provisions requiring: adequate registration, identification, and placement of all ELLs; ongoing training of all personnel involved in the registration, identification, and placement process; maintenance of a database of qualified and available translation and interpretation services; sufficient and appropriate instruction for ELLs; development of an English Language Development (ELD)/English as a Second Language (ESL) curricula; qualified and trained teachers of ELLs; the provision of adequate materials; appropriate special education services and language services for ELLs who are eligible for both services; careful monitoring of current and exited ELLs; and evaluation of the district’s ELL program.

On April 17, 2023, the Section entered into a settlement agreement  with the Spokane Public Schools in Spokane, Washington to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into complaints that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained children with disabilities and failed to use appropriate behavior interventions.  The Department’s investigation concluded that the school district inappropriately and repeatedly secluded and restrained students with disabilities and did not limit its use of restraint and seclusion to emergency situations, as required by state law and the district policy.  Instead, the district restrained and secluded students with disabilities to address noncompliant behavior, even when those actions appeared to escalate the behavior or when students showed clear signs of trauma.  As a result, the District’s restraint and seclusion practices segregated hundreds of students with disabilities from their classmates and resulted in students missing hundreds of hours of instructional time.

Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students on the basis of disability. The district will, among other steps: prohibit the use of seclusion; limit the use of restraint; document and report all instances of seclusion and restraint; appoint a district-level administrator to review all incidents of seclusion and restraint to ensure proper follow-up occurs; create classroom-wide Behavior Management Plans for its programs serving students with high-intensity behaviors that are based on data analysis and that promote and reinforce positive behaviors; provide copies of and explain classroom plans to parents and guardians; develop a complaint procedure and respond in a timely fashion to all complaints regarding the use of restraint or seclusion; offer counseling and compensatory education services to students with disabilities who were subjected to the district’s discriminatory practices; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this letter ,  press release , and  summary of settlement agreement .

In this matter involving the Stamford Public School District, the Section and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut (“USAO”) conducted a comprehensive review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner (“ELL”)  students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. §1703(f).  On February 28, 2014, the Section, the USAO, and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the district’s noncompliance with the EEOA.  The agreement requires the district to: provide language acquisition services to all ELL students until they reach the state’s English proficiency criteria; ensure that teachers of ELL students are qualified to provide these services; make appropriate language services available for ELL students with disabilities; obtain adequate materials for ELL students; and monitor students after they exit ELL services to ensure they are participating meaningfully and equally in the district’s instructional program.  Under the Agreement, the district will implement a tiered services plan to ensure that ELL services are appropriate to ELL students’ English language proficiency levels, designed to address their individualized needs, and effective.  The district will ensure that ELL students who are not making sufficient yearly progress receive additional ELL services.  For more information, please see this press release .

In February of 1970, the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi entered separate orders requiring the Starkville Municipal Separate School District and the Oktibbeha County School District to desegregate. In 2015, the Mississippi Legislature consolidated the two school districts, and, in 2016, the new Starkville-Oktibbeha Consolidated School District (the “District”) and the United States filed a joint motion to approve a new desegregation order. The District Court granted the motion and approved the consent order on March 3, 2016.

The consent order requires the District to eliminate segregative policies and practices in its operations regarding student assignment, faculty and staff hiring, transportation, extracurriculars, and facilities. Specific provisions in the consent order require the District to, among other things, provide equal access to gifted-and-talented and advanced programs; analyze the equity of bus assignments and routes; and hire, promote, pay, demote, discipline, non-renew, and dismiss faculty and staff without regard to race, color, or national origin. The District must also have a Biracial Advisory Committee, which will advise the District on the desegregation plan.  The Section is monitoring the District’s efforts to achieve unitary status and comply with the consent order.

This case involves claims against the Department of Education of the State of Hawaii and various government officials for alleged violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants intentionally discriminated against Aaron L. because of his disability (Down Syndrome), failed to provide him with appropriate special education services, and denied him a free appropriate public education, all in violation of Section 504 and the IDEA. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and other equitable relief.

Both defendants and plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment. Defendants asserted that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiffs asserted that they should be able to demonstrate discriminatory intent, for purposes of obtaining compensatory damages under Section 504, with evidence that defendants acted with deliberate indifference or conscious disregard for their federal rights.

In its intervention brief filed on May 25, 2001, the Section defended the constitutionality of Section 504 and the IDEA. The Section also filed an amicus brief arguing that a plaintiff seeking compensatory damages under Section 504 may rely on the deliberate indifference standard to prove discriminatory intent.

On June 18, 2001, the district court upheld the constitutionality of Section 504 and the IDEA, and ruled that a plaintiff seeking compensatory damages under Section 504 may establish intentional discrimination by showing that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's federally protected rights.

On June 30, 2011, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reached a resolution agreement with the Tehachapi Unified School District in Tehachapi, California, to resolve a complaint regarding the harassment of a middle school student based on his nonconformity with gender stereotypes. The complaint arose from the September 2010 death of Jacobsen Middle School student Seth Walsh, who took his own life at the age of 13. Following OCR's investigation, the Section joined OCR in working with the school district to resolve the complaint. The investigation found that Walsh suffered sexual and gender-based harassment by his peers for more than two school years because of his nonconformity with gender stereotypes.

As summarized in a detailed letter of findings , the departments determined that the harassment, which included ongoing and escalating verbal, physical and sexual harassment by other students at school, was sufficiently severe, pervasive and persistent to interfere with his educational opportunities, and that the school district failed to appropriately respond to notice of the harassment. The departments concluded that the school district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights of 1964, both of which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes and sexual harassment. Under the terms of the agreement, the district agreed to take a variety of steps to prevent sexual and gender-based harassment at all of its schools, to respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and to eliminate the hostile environment resulting from harassment. These steps include adopting revised policies and procedures for handling sexual and gender-based harassment complaints, conducting trainings for faculty, staff, and students, and reporting data to OCR and DOJ for five years. For more information, please see this press release.

On July 20, 2023, the Section entered into a resolution agreement with Teton County School District #1 in Wyoming to resolve the department’s investigation into the district’s responses to alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, and disability discrimination conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The agreement requires the school district to work with a consultant to review and revise its anti-harassment policies and practices and ensure it responds appropriately to discrimination complaints and adopts appropriate supportive and remedial measures using the district’s Multi-Tiered Support System.  The district also will: prohibit and take reasonable steps to prevent retaliation; implement school climate assessments; implement an engagement plan; train its civil rights coordinator and other staff on their obligations under the district’s antidiscrimination policies and resolution procedures; and institute internal monitoring and auditing procedures to ensure compliance and regularly evaluate its antidiscrimination program. For more information, please see the press release .

On June 11, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska in evaluating the Title IX peer sexual assault and retaliation claims for damages in Thomas v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska , Case No. 4:20-cv-03081. In this case, the plaintiffs, current and former students of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), allege that UNL discriminated against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX when UNL allegedly responded to their reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and/or retaliation with deliberate indifference that created and/or left them in a hostile educational environment. Plaintiffs also allege that UNL violated Title IX by engaging in retaliatory actions against them in response to their reports of peer retaliation and sexual assault. In the statement of interest responding to UNL’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the United States set forth the proper legal standards for the court to apply to plaintiffs’ Title IX claims for damages based on alleged sexual assaults and retaliation. The United States took no position on whether plaintiffs’ allegations in their complaint state plausible Title IX claims for damages under those legal standards.

This is a longstanding desegregation case in the Western District of Louisiana, where the St. Martin Parish School Board has not fulfilled its desegregation obligations in the following areas: student assignment, faculty assignment, and quality of education in graduation pathways and discipline.  To remedy the student assignment issues, the United States, the School Board, and the Private Plaintiffs represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, entered into a consent order on June 9, 2023 . The 2023 consent order provides for  student transfers to promote desegregation across the District and establishes a plan to develop a robust magnet program to further desegregate the St. Martinville zone.  The parties are still negotiating and litigating remedial measures for creating attendance zone changes that  desegregate the District’s schools.  Following a period of litigation from 2021-2023 regarding the District’s compliance with a 2016 Superseding Consent Order , the District Court  entered an order on May 25, 2023 that requires the District to take additional steps regarding faculty assignment, graduation pathways, and discipline.  The Court will retain jurisdiction over the case and consent order, and the Justice Department will monitor the District’s compliance.  For more information, please see this press release .

Additional Documents:

On July 31, 2020, the district and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address and prevent discriminatory discipline of students based on race or disability and to require appropriate language services for limited English proficient (LEP) parents on matters essential to their children’s education.  The agreement followed a federal civil rights investigation by the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio into complaints of discriminatory treatment of African-American students and students with disabilities in school suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to law enforcement agencies, which was conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  The Department also investigated under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 allegations concerning the district’s communications with parents and guardians with language barriers.  Under the settlement agreement, the district will take proactive steps to ensure its discipline practices do not discriminate against students based on race or disability.  The district will, among other things, regularly review how schools handle discipline incidents to ensure non-discriminatory treatment, expand its use of positive behavior supports, and provide appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement, including training for teachers, administrators, and school safety officers.  In addition, for parents and guardians with language barriers, the district will ensure it communicates essential school-related information in a language that they understand so their children can access the district’s instructional programs.  The United States will monitor compliance with the terms of the three-year agreement.  For more information, please see this press release .  On December 15, 2023, the parties executed an extension agreement , which modifies and extends the 2020 settlement agreement through the 2024-2025 school year.

Settlement Agreement: English  |  Acuerdo de Conciliación:  Español (Spanish)  | Extension Agreement

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education filed a statement of interest  on February 20, 2015 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Tooley v. Van Buren Public Schools. In this case, the plaintiff, a transgender boy, alleges that several Michigan school districts unlawfully subjected him to harassment and denied him equal treatment and benefits based on his sex. In the statement of interest, the departments advised the court that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibit discrimination against students because of their sex, including on the basis of a student's gender identity, transgender status, or nonconformity to sex stereotypes. The departments concluded that plaintiff's allegations of sex discrimination on each of these bases under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause were sufficient to deny the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Wyandotte Public Schools.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education filed a statement of interest on January 25, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in T.R. v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 15-04782.  This case involves Limited English Proficient (LEP) parents of students with disabilities who allege that the Philadelphia School District intentionally discriminates against them based on national origin by not providing complete and timely translations and interpretations of special education and regular education documents.  In the statement of interest, the departments explained that under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 case law and federal regulations and guidance, school districts have an obligation to provide LEP parents with a meaningful opportunity to participate in their children’s education.  The statement of interest also supported the plaintiffs’ claims under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) by explaining that “appropriate action” under the EEOA includes translations and interpretations for LEP parents.  On November 30, 2016, the court issued a memorandum opinion denying the district’s motion to dismiss in its entirety and relied on the United States’ brief in the discussion of why the court was not dismissing the EEOA and Title VI claims.

On March 16, 2023, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Twin Valley School District in Whitingham, VT to address the District’s response to complaints of student-on-student harassment based on race and sex. The Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont jointly conducted the investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c et seq . Under the settlement agreement, the school district will implement the following reforms: modify district policies and procedures to prevent and address peer harassment; undertake periodic assessments of school climate at Twin Valley Middle-High School and implement responsive programming to remedy hostile educational environments; and improve training for district employees who receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints of harassment. For more information, please see this cover letter and press release .

In this matter involving Union Public Schools, the Section examined whether the Oklahoma school district was providing appropriate services to its approximately 3,500 English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On June 26, 2018, the Section and the District entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps that the District will take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; ensure that the English as a Second Language (“ESL”) components of its EL program are taught by ESL-certified teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the EL program; ensure meaningful communication with Limited English Proficient parents about District and school programs and activities; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  The parties anticipate the agreement will remain in place through 2021. 

This desegregation case was in active litigation for two years when the school district moved to have the case dismissed in November 1998. Following a review of information provided by the district, a tour of district schools and subsequent rulings by the court, the parties entered into a consent order in November 1999. The agreement set forth a plan for the district to take additional steps to desegregate the school system and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination from the former segregated system.

Under the settlement, the district agreed to: (1) implement a new elementary school assignment plan and convert two historically minority schools into magnet schools; (2) eliminate general tracks in secondary schools while keeping certain advanced and gifted and talented tracks; (3) implement reforms to its bilingual education and English as a Second Language programs; (4) develop an action plan in each secondary school to increase minority participation in extracurricular activities; and (5) implement a mentoring program to identify potential minority candidates for administrative intern and teaching positions. As a result, minority enrollment increased in advanced and gifted classes, the magnet schools enrolled diverse student bodies, and the English Language Learner program was significantly improved. On September 12, 2002, the court declared the district unitary and dismissed the case.

This English Language Learner (“ELL”) case originally arose from a desegregation order entered against the State of Texas and the Texas Education Agency (“TEA”). In 1972, the League of United Latin American Citizens (“LULAC”) and GI Forum were allowed to intervene in the desegregation case as representatives of Mexican Americans in Texas. Most recently, on February 9, 2006, LULAC and GI Forum filed a motion for further relief under the statewide desegregation order and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). Their motion alleges that Texas and TEA have failed to sufficiently monitor and enforce programs for ELL students in public schools across the state, thereby wrongfully denying those students equal educational opportunities.

In their briefs responding to the motion for further relief, the state defendants claimed immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and argued that the EEOA failed to validly abrogate this immunity. On July 10, 2006, the Section filed a response to these briefs, asserting that the EEOA abrogated states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity because the statute constituted a reasonably tailored legislative response to a long history of unconstitutional discrimination against national origin minorities. In its August 11, 2006 memorandum opinion , the district court agreed with the Section’s analysis and held that the EEOA abrogated the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

On November 30, 2007, the United States filed a motion for further relief asserting that the Evangeline Parish School Board had failed to fully implement an earlier agreed upon school reorganization plan. The United States sought additional relief, including, either, completion of certain renovations at a majority black high school, construction of a new facility at this high school, or grade restructuring and mandatory reassignment of students from other schools to eliminate the racial identifiability of the school. On December 22, 2009, after significant litigation the court entered a consent order negotiated by the parties that requires the District to take remedial measures in the areas of personnel assignment, facilities, student assignment and quality of education.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Board of Visitors of The Citadel voted to admit women to its Corps of Cadets, and, in August 1996, four women joined the entering class of students. When allegations surfaced in December 1996 that two of the women had been harassed and physically abused, the United States initiated an investigation into The Citadel's assimilation efforts. This investigation was separate and apart from the contemporaneous criminal investigation initiated by federal and state law enforcement authorities.

Subsequently the court required The Citadel to submit a revised plan for the assimilation of women. This led to a consent order that, among other things, required The Citadel to: hire a full-time Assistant Commandant to coordinate the assimilation of women into the Corps of Cadets, a fulltime Dean of Women and a full-time recruiter to coordinate female recruitment efforts; institute regular, mandatory sexual harassment-prevention training of all students and staff; undertake specific efforts to recruit women; develop formal assessment tools to evaluate assimilation; hire and station eight additional adult officers in each of the barracks to increase supervision; establish a female assimilation study group to evaluate assimilation efforts and make reports to the president of the college; promptly complete all facilities modifications to accommodate women in all barracks; revise school publications to eliminate sex-restrictive language; and establish informal complaint reporting mechanisms, including the establishment of a college Ombudsman to serve as a confidential recipient of complaints of harassment or abuse. On March 28, 2002, the court entered an agreed order of dismissal to which the parents had agreed, thereby dismissing the case.

The Section filed a complaint alleging that defendants engaged in race discrimination by failing to provide equal educational opportunities for the American Indian students residing in Navajo Mountain. Specifically, the district failed to provide a secondary school located reasonably near their place of residence, as is done for all other students residing in the district. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, American Indian students who lived in the Navajo Mountain community attended boarding schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 90 miles away from home. The nearest district high school was 171 miles away from the Navajo Mountain area. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. One year later, the parties entered into a settlement agreement , and the new Navajo Mountain High School opened for classes in 1998.

This case arose out of a long-standing school desegregation suit filed by the United States against the State of Texas, Texas Education Agency (“TEA”), and various school districts. In 1971, the district court entered a desegregation order that, among other things, prohibited TEA from approving or funding interdistrict student transfers that have the cumulative effect of reducing or impeding desegregation in one of the districts. In 2003, Hearne Independent School District (“Hearne”) intervened in the underlying suit, claiming that transfers from Hearne to Mumford Independent School District (“Mumford”) had reduced or impeded desegregation in Hearne, and that TEA improperly continued to fund those transfers. In 2004, the Division filed a motion to enforce the desegregation order against TEA and Mumford.

After a bench trial, the district court found that the transfers from Hearne to Mumford reduced desegregation in Hearne, that Mumford had engaged in fraudulent conduct to circumvent the requirements of the desegregation order, and that the TEA had not complied with the order. The district court enjoined Mumford from accepting–and TEA from funding–all of the transfers that reduced or impeded desegregation in Hearne. Mumford and TEA subsequently appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 24, 2006, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s judgment. In its opinion , the Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous and that its remedy was overly broad. The Fifth Circuit further held that Mumford could not be held liable for violating the desegregation order without a finding that it intentionally engaged in segregative conduct because it was not a party defendant to the original desegregation lawsuit.

This is a long-standing desegregation case in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 9, 2006, the court approved a consent decree that obliges the district to take measures in the areas of student attendance and assignment, facilities, employee assignment, and student transfers. These measures include, but are not limited to: maintaining facilities and resources at Ruth Hill, a former black school, that are comparable to those at other elementary schools; implementing new attendance zones and policies; and assigning principals and instructional staff in a manner that does not identify a school as intended for one race.

The Section assessed whether the Dublin City School District (Dublin) was complying with its school desegregation orders and applicable federal law. In the course of its review, the Section determined that Dublin’s ability grouping and heterogeneous class assignments were violating a desegregation order. The Section also determined that Dublin was using race-based class assignments to dissuade white students from transferring to the surrounding majority white district of Laurens County (Laurens) and that transfers from Dublin to Laurens were negatively impacting desegregation in Dublin’s schools. The Section attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate voluntary relief with Dublin and Laurens.

On April 15, 2004, the Section filed a motion and supporting memorandum to hold Dublin in contempt for its class assignment violations and for further relief against Dublin and Laurens to enforce an order governing interdistrict transfers. Dublin moved for unitary status, and the Section filed an opposition . Pursuant to the court’s instructions, the United States filed a motion to join Laurens as a necessary defendant and a supplemental complaint against Laurens.

On June 23, 2005, after extensive discovery, the United States and Dublin agreed to a consent order and a settlement agreement that resolved all issues between them, except for the interdistrict transfer issue. The consent order , which was approved by the court on July 1, 2005, governs student assignments to classes and schools, extracurricular activities, and transportation. The settlement agreement governs faculty, administrators, staff, gifted programs, special education, and diploma tracks. Many of the black students improperly classified as having a Mild Intellectual Disability or an Emotional/Behavioral Disorder have been exited from special education under the agreement.

On February 21, 2006, the Section moved for summary judgment against Laurens on the interdistrict transfer issue. Laurens filed an opposition, and the Section filed a reply . The Section also moved for summary judgment against Dublin. Dublin opposed by adopting Laurens’s opposition. Laurens moved for summary judgment on the transfer issue, but Dublin did not. The Section filed an opposition to Laurens’s motion and a motion to exclude Laurens’s expert report. This motion and the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment are fully briefed and pending before the court. To obtain copies of the unsealed exhibits to any of the linked documents, please call (202) 514-4092.

This case arose out of a long-standing school desegregation suit filed by the United States on August 1, 1969 against the State of Georgia and 81 individual school districts. Subsequent to substantive rulings from the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the District Court approved a comprehensive consent decree in 1974.  Thereafter, in March 2013, the District Court approved a consent decree with provisions addressing each of the Green factors: (1) student assignment, including school assignment, student transfers, classroom assignment, gifted and talented, and discipline; (2) faculty and staff, including faculty assignment and faculty hiring; (3) transportation; (4) facilities; and (5) extracurricular activities. On May 25, 2017, the District Court approved a new consent decree , which replaced the March 2013 consent decree and all previous orders in the matter. The May 2017 consent decree provides that the district has satisfied its obligations in the areas of transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities, and includes remedial measures to address outstanding concerns related to the remaining Green factors, student assignment and faculty and staff. The consent decree is intended to enable the district to establish the record needed for a declaration of full unitary status.

In the late 1980's, the litigation was reactivated when the United States and the plaintiff-intervenors moved to compel Meriwether to comply with the July 23, 1973 permanent injunction. Those proceedings resulted in an order dated June 28, 1990, which established a new student attendance zone plan, prohibited most intra-district and inter-district transfers, and required teaching and staff assignments at schools to remain within 5% of the district-wide racial percentages for teachers and staff. The court also ordered Meriwether to offer the same courses above the core curriculum at both Manchester and Greenville High Schools. In 1996, the court approved a five-year facilities plan proposed by the district. In 1999, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s approval of the plan. United States & Ridley v. State of Georgia (Meriwether Co. Bd. Of Educ.) , 171 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 1999).

On August 28, 2003, Meriwether moved for a declaration of unitary status. The United States objected to the district’s motion. Subsequent to comprehensive discovery and negotiations, the court approved a Consent Decree on October 21, 2004, which essentially requires the district to fully implement the plan previously approved by the court and to see unitary status in 2007.

The Section intervened in a suit filed by plaintiffs who sought relief from violations of a court-ordered settlement agreement made between private plaintiffs and the district in 1976. The suit involved allegations that defendants failed to provide equal educational services to American Indian students in the district. Our complaint-in-intervention alleged that the district failed to provide equal educational opportunities to American Indian students and failed to provide an appropriate program of education for limited-English-proficient Navajo students. The case was settled by consent agreement and covered the issues raised in our complaint. The settlement called for the establishment of four committees to review the district's programs in general curriculum, special education, and bilingual education and to hear disputes that arise under the agreement. The district has adjusted its educational programs accordingly, including its program for students who are limited English proficient.

This case was brought by the Section in 1980 as both an education and housing desegregation case against the City of Yonkers, the Yonkers Board of Education (YBOE), and the Yonkers Community Development agency. The Yonkers Branch of the NAACP (NAACP) intervened as plaintiffs in 1981, and the case was certified as a class action on behalf of all parents of minority (black and Hispanic) children attending the Yonkers Public Schools (YPS) and all minority residents of Yonkers currently residing in, or eligible to reside in, publicly assisted housing. In 1985, the district court found that the defendants had intentionally segregated the City's public schools and housing over a forty-year period. The court order designed to desegregate the schools became known as the Educational Improvement Plan I (EIP I). EIP I, which primarily involved a magnet school program, desegregated the district with respect to student and faculty assignment.

In September 1987, the YBOE filed a cross-claim against the State of New York, alleging that the State also was liable for the prior segregation in housing and education and that there were continuing vestiges of the prior school segregation that were not being addressed by EIP I. In 1993, the district court found that vestiges of segregation existed in the YPS but that precedent from the Second Circuit precluded the court from holding the State liable as a defendant. In 1996, a panel of the Second Circuit distinguished this precedent and ruled that the State could be held liable for the prior segregation. In 1996,the City filed a third-party cross-claim against the State to obtain state contributions to the costs of implementing the school desegregation orders. In 1997, the district court held that the same vestiges identified in 1993 still existed in 1997, and it ordered the State and City to fund a remedial plan known as EIP II. These defendants appealed.

In June 1999, a panel of the Second Circuit initially reversed the district court's 1993 and 1997 vestiges findings and remanded the case to end the action. In a November 1999 decision, the panel withdrew the June 1999 decision, but maintained its reversal of the vestiges findings and remanded the case to the district court to determine if any other vestiges existed. In November 2000, the district court found that five vestiges of segregation existed in YPS as of 1997: (1) disproportionate academic tracking of minority students into the least demanding classes; (2) disproportionately high discipline of minority students; (3) disproportionately high referrals of minorities to special education; (4) inadequate pupil personnel services; and (5) inadequate services for limited-English-proficient students. The court directed the court-appointed monitor to determine whether evidence since 1997 showed that these five vestiges still existed, and it urged the parties to settle the case.

The Section and the other parties were actively involved in negotiations until they reached a settlement of the case in January 2002. In March 2002, the court conducted a fairness hearing and approved the settlement . The settlement dismissed the education portion of the case with prejudice while retaining court jurisdiction to enforce the settlement's terms. In the settlement, the parties did not agree that the YPS was entitled to a court declaration of unitary status, but rather that the YPS was unitary with respect to the six Green factors and that disputed issues regarding vestiges were resolved by the educational programs and funding provided under the settlement. The settlement required the State to provide $300 million over a five-year period to fund over forty remedial educational programs. The settlement ended on its own terms on June 30, 2006, effectively ending the case.

In this long-standing desegregation case, a consent decree negotiated between the Section and the school district was approved by the court on October 15, 2004. The consent decree includes provisions requiring the district to: cease assigning students to classrooms in a manner that creates racially segregated classrooms; conduct an investigation of racial differences in assignment to its gifted and talented program; alter its method for assigning students to honors classes; cease allowing the use of race-conscious policies or procedures in all of its extracurricular activities; and desegregate certain bus routes.

This longstanding desegregation case was filed by the United States in 1967, and a private plaintiff was granted the right to intervene in 1987. On July 23, 1969, the court approved the school district's first desegregation plan, and, in response to a motion for further relief, the court issued a new order concerning student assignment on April 20, 1987, which was subsequently modified in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, and 2005. On May 28, 2009, the court issued an order granting, in part, and denying, in part, a motion filed by the school district for approval of a new desegregation plan. The court subsequently declared the school district partially unitary status in the areas of transportation (March 9, 2012), faculty and staff assignment (Sept. 2, 2012), and extracurricular activities (Dec. 14, 2012). The school district also filed a motion for a declaration of partial unitary status in the area of facilities, which was denied and later renewed on August 18, 2013. On April 6, 2014, the district filed a motion for a declaration of full unitary status, which the United States opposed on June 3, 2014. On October 8, 2014, the court issued an order directing the parties to participate in mediation on all unresolved issues, and on May 21, 2015 approved a negotiated consent order that requires the district to implement a new student assignment and transfer policy; adopt new outreach and admission procedures at the district's charter and magnet schools; and implement a new student discipline policy.

In this long-standing desegregation case involving the Bertie County (North Carolina) Board of Education, the Section commenced informal discovery to assess whether the school district was complying with its desegregation order and applicable federal law. Based on its review of the district, the Section identified concerns regarding the school district’s assignment of students, faculty and staff assignments, and student transfer policies. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, but were not able to develop a mutually satisfactory agreement.

On September 26, 2002, the Section filed a motion requesting further relief. In its supporting memorandum of law , the Section asked the district court to order the school district to develop a new desegregation plan that would address vestiges of segregation in student, faculty, and staff assignments as well as student transfers. On April 22, 2003, the district court issued an order granting the Section's motion and directing the school district to file a new desegregation plan to address the vestiges identified in the Section's motion.

On December 19, 2003, the school district filed its proposed desegregation plan. After discovery and negotiations, the Section filed a response to the plan on February 24, 2005. In this response, the Section objected only in part to the proposed student assignment plan, which would have failed to desegregate Askewville Elementary School to the extent practicable. The Section also recommended consideration of more effective alternatives for desegregation and raised the issue of the poor condition of JP Law Elementary School, a small historically black school with declining enrollment. The parties reached an interim agreement on these lingering issues, which culminated in a consent order entered on June 24, 2005. This order called for the reconfiguration of attendance zone lines for Askewville, an independent facilities assessment of the elementary and middle schools in the district, and the development of a new student assignment plan.

Following the completion of the facilities assessment and further negotiations, the parties reached agreement about student assignment, transfers, and facilities. This agreement, reflected in the court-approved consent order of March 17, 2006, established a timeline for closing Askewville and JP Law Elementary Schools and required the re-drawing of elementary school attendance zone lines. The order also prohibited the consideration of race in classroom assignments in other elementary schools and enumerated annual reporting requirements. Finally, the order declared that the school district had complied with its desegregation obligations with respect to transportation, extra-curricular activities, and faculty and staff assignment.

This longstanding school desegregation case was initiated by the United States in 1970.  On January 13, 2017, the United States and the Hendry County School Board filed a joint motion for declaration of partial unitary status and sought court approval of a stipulation governing faculty and staff recruiting and student discipline.  On January 23, 2017, the court granted the parties’ motion , declaring that the school district had achieved partial unitary status with respect to student assignment between schools, transportation, facilities, and extracurricular activities.  The court also approved the parties’ stipulation regarding faculty and staff recruiting and student discipline and will retain jurisdiction over these areas.

In 1980, the United States filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education alleging the board was violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by unlawfully segregating students in its schools on the basis of race and national origin. On the same day the United States filed its complaint, the parties filed a school desegregation consent decree the court entered on September 24, 1980.

In January 2003, the court directed the parties to examine the continued viability of the 1980 consent decree. The parties evaluated the board’s compliance with its desegregation obligations and jointly developed a modified consent decree sought to achieve the goals of the original consent decree under the changed factual and legal circumstances facing the board. On March 1, 2004, the Court approved the modified consent decree , which required the board to fulfill obligations in the following areas: student assignment; faculty assignment; facilities; transportation; compensatory and supplemental programs; desegregation funding; discipline; higher level course offerings; extracurricular activities; and English Language Learner (“ELL”) programs.

The United States moved to enforce the modified consent decree on four occasions. On one such occasion, the United States filed a motion to enforce the board’s desegregation funding obligations and its duty to provide majority-to-minority (“M-to-M transfers”). The board filed an opposition, and the United States filed a reply . On December 7, 2004, the court issued an opinion in favor of the United States. On August 26, 2005, the United States filed a motion to show cause because the board once again failed to comply with its desegregation funding duties. The board filed an opposition, and the United States filed a reply . On September 21, 2005, the court ruled that the board’s 2005-06 desegregation budget did not comply with the modified consent decree. The parties resolved this dispute through a stipulated settlement the court approved on November 9, 2005.

In the fall of 2005, the court asked the parties and amici to file position papers on whether the modified consent decree should be dismissed or continued in an altered form. The parties filed briefs requesting court approval of a second amended consent approving the parties’ settlement with slight modifications. The August 10, 2006 order requires the board to: continue magnet and specialized schools, offer M-to-M transfers, monitor open enrollment transfers to ensure they do not negatively impact desegregation, fund compensatory programs at racially isolated schools, take steps to diversify the applicant pool for principals, and provide adequate services to ELL students.

On February 16, 2008, the United States filed a motion to enforce the ELL provisions of the 2006 amended consent decree. The United States argued the board had failed to comply with these ELL provisions in three ways: (1)the board had not demonstrated 30% of its special education ELLs were appropriately served, (2) thousands of ELLs received no ELL services or untimely and inadequate ELL services, and(3)the board failed to provide native language instruction and materials for many of its Transitional Bilingual Education programs. After conducting fact and expert discovery, the parties participated in a twelve-day trial in early 2009 regarding whether the board had achieved unitary status in all areas. At the trial, the board sought dismissal of the entire case, and the United States vigorously opposed dismissal of the ELL provisions. On February 20, 2009, the United States filed a post-trial brief, urging the court to require the board to file a proposal regarding how it intends to operate the magnet and specialized schools so the court can assess the board’s good faith, and to order appropriate relief to ensure ELLs receive the services required by the August 10, 2006 order. The parties await a ruling from the court.

On February 20, 2009, the United States filed a post-trial brief , urging the court to require the board to file a proposal regarding how it intends to operate the magnet and specialized schools so the court can assess the board’s good faith, and to order appropriate relief to ensure ELLs receive the services required by the August 10, 2006 order. On September 3, 2009, the United States filed a supplemental brief in light of the Supreme Court ruling in Horne v. Flores. On September 24, 2009, the court vacated the August 10, 2006 order and dismissed the case.

In this longstanding desegregation case, January 7, 2009, the Court entered a consent decree negotiated by the parties finds the district unitary in all areas except student assignment and quality of education. Pursuant to the terms of the consent decree, the District will seek the Southeastern Equity Center’s assistance in the administration of disciplinary measures and ensuring students equal access to admission in the District’s gifted programs.

This school desegregation lawsuit was initiated by the United States on November 30, 1970. On April 1, 1971, the court ordered defendants to implement a desegregation plan, which was modified by subsequent court orders in 1979, 1981, and 1992. On June 30, 2008, the court approved a consent decree declaring the school district partially unitary in the areas of student assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. To address the United States' concerns that a number of Valdosta's schools were racially identifiable in terms of the demographics of school-based personnel, the 2008 consent decree required the Board to take additional steps to meet its obligations in the areas of faculty and staff. The Board was required to develop personnel policies and procedures related to the recruitment, hiring, and assignment of faculty and certified staff; to assign school-based personnel so that no school would be racially identifiable by its faculty; to maintain applications for employment for a three-year period; and to submit periodic compliance reports to the United States and the court. On March 21, 2011, the Board filed a motion for unitary status and motion to dismiss. The United States, finding that the Board had not fully complied with the terms of the 2008 Consent Decree, opposed the Board's motions in a response filed on November 21, 2011. Following settlement negotiations, the parties agreed to a consent order , approved by the court on February 29, 2012, which modifies and extends the terms of the 2008 Consent Decree for two years. Pursuant to the 2012 Consent Order, the Board agreed to withdraw its motion for unitary status and motion to dismiss. For more information on the 2012 Consent Order, please see this press release .

In this desegregation case, the United States determined that the Calhoun County school district was permitting students to transfer to any school in the district without regard to the impact these transfers had on the school district's desegregation obligations. The United States and the school district agreed on a transfer policy that governs the transfer of students within the school district and to other school districts. The parties presented the transfer policy as part of a consent decree that was submitted to the federal district court for its consideration and approval. In 2004, the parties also agreed to the consolidation of all middle school grades at one school located in the district. This agreement was approved by the court and became effective in the 2004-05 school year.

In 2001, the Section received complaints from Asian students at Lafayette High School (LHS) in Brooklyn, NY that alleged numerous instances of national origin discrimination. This discrimination took many forms, ranging from inadequate services for English Language Learner (ELL) students to school officials’ indifferent reaction to persistent verbal and physical peer harassment of Asian students. In one well-publicized case, four Chinese students returning to LHS for their senior year were informed that they had graduated the previous year, though guidance counselors had erroneously informed them otherwise. School officials initially prohibited the graduated students from returning to high school for an additional year of college preparation, notwithstanding the fact that it was too late for them to apply for college admission or receive financial aid. In other cases, Asian students at LHS who assumed they were on track to graduate were forced to return for additional semesters after falling one or two credits short of their graduation requirement when counselors failed to schedule them for the correct classes.

After a lengthy investigation the United States filed a complaint against the City of New York and the Board of Education of the New York City School District on February 2, 2004. The United States alleged violations of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act stemming from defendants’ failure to ameliorate the hostile environment for Asian students at LHS, and further charged that defendants violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) by failing to take appropriate action to help ELL students overcome their language barriers. Four months later, the parties entered into a consent decree that obliged defendants to develop a compliance plan to remedy the transgressions alleged in the United States’ complaint. The Section, in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York, is currently monitoring the defendants’ performance under the compliance plan to ensure that there is no recurrence of the events that gave rise to the complaint.

The Section brought suit against Virginia in 1990 under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after receiving a signed, written complaint from a female high school student in Virginia about the males-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia had failed to justify its exclusion of women from VMI's unique educational program.

Following the Supreme Court's decision and VMI's admission of women in 1997, the Section monitored the integration of women into the institution. As a result of a March 21, 2000 Order requiring Virginia to provide more extensive information on its integration efforts at VMI, the Section reviewed reports regarding male and female students in the areas of recruitment and admissions, retention, financial aid, gender relations, physical training, and women's varsity athletics. The Section worked cooperatively with Virginia to resolve its concerns arising from information contained in the reports, and, as a result, the parties signed and the court entered a Joint Motion for Dismissal on December 6, 2001.

On February 23, 2024, the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas approved a consent order in the England School District desegregation case to ensure the District broadens its recruitment efforts and conduct hiring on a non-discriminatory basis. As part of the consent order, the district will be required to:

• Collect data on the race of applicants for administrator and Certified Staff vacancies, track whom the District interviews, selects and hires for those positions, and to document the reasons for the hiring decisions;
• Maintain a recruitment and retention team;
• Ensure vacancies are properly advertised on employment sites, social media, and local sources of publicity;
• Develop recruiting partnerships with specific colleges; and
• File with the Court twice yearly status updates and share the information in those status reports with the public at school board meetings.

The court will retain jurisdiction over the consent order during its implementation, which is expected to last two years, and the Justice Department will monitor the district’s compliance.  

On December 6, 2016, the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas approved a consent order to address the remaining issue in the Watson Chapel School District desegregation case, the administration of school discipline. The consent order will replace the use of punitive discipline with more positive approaches as part of an overall focus on improving student achievement and school climate.   As part of the consent order, the district will be required to:

• Revise its Code of Conduct, which currently allows the harshest discipline to be imposed for the most minor offense, to instead strictly limit the use of exclusionary discipline, including prohibiting expulsions or out-of-school suspensions for offenses that do not threaten safety;
• Stop the use of corporal punishment, which has been disproportionately applied against black students and undermined the creation of a positive school climate;
• Assess the district’s support services for students with disabilities to ensure that students, particularly students of color, are not disciplined for their disabilities; and
• Enter into an agreement with the law enforcement agencies that provide School Resource Officers to the district that makes clear that Officers will not become involved in enforcing school discipline rules, prevents students from being arrested for minor misconduct and requires the Officer to provide a report to the District any time the Officer becomes involved in an incident at a school.

The court will retain jurisdiction over the consent order during its implementation, which is expected to last three years, and the Justice Department will monitor the district’s compliance.  For more information, please see this press release .

In this long-standing desegregation case involving the Covington County (Mississippi) School District, the Section had concerns about the district’s two virtually one-race schools, how the district’s staff assignment and school construction have reinforced those two virtually one-race schools, and the district’s use of race in extracurricular activities and awards (to include race-based homecoming queens). Despite the fact that the district overall enrolled about half-black students and half-white students, the district nevertheless maintained one virtually one-race black elementary school, Hopewell (grades K-6), and one virtually one-race white attendance center, Seminary (grades K-12), that enrolled over 60% of all of the white students in the district. Hopewell is the only school in the district without a neighborhood middle or high school. Upon graduating from Hopewell, Hopewell students attended grades 7-12 at a majority black middle and high school (ranked passing and Level III in academic achievement by the state) about 10-12 minutes by bus from Seminary (ranked highest achieving and Level V in academic achievement by the state). The district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, but were not able to develop a mutually satisfactory agreement.

On November 25, 2003, the Section filed a motion requesting further relief and a memorandum of law in support of that motion. In its filings, the Section asked the district court to order the school district to develop a new desegregation plan that would address vestiges of segregation in student assignment, staff assignment, school construction, and extracurricular activities.

On April 28, 2005, the United States filed a motion for partial summary judgment, challenging the district’s race-based extracurricular activities. The district then agreed to enter into a Consent Decree that required it to cease any practices utilizing a student’s race, color, or national origin in the selection or eligibility for participation in any extracurricular activity and to develop written racially non-discriminatory extracurricular activity policies.

On March 8, 2006, after additional discovery and extensive settlement discussions, the district and the United States entered into a Consent Decree resolving the remaining issues in the case. As a result of this Consent Decree, the district made the following modifications, among others, to its existing desegregation plan for the following school year: (1) all students attending Hopewell for grades K-6 will attend Seminary for grades 7-12, thereby eventually desegregating Seminary for grades 7-12; (2) the district committed to publicize its Majority-to-Minority transfer program; (3) the district committed to implement a compensatory enrichment program at Hopewell (a pre-K program) with the primary purpose to “enhance education” at Hopewell and the secondary purpose to “encourage white students who reside in other attendance zones” to attend Hopewell; (4) the district is required to conduct a facilities organization study and to submit all plans for construction and renovation to the United States prior to commencing any construction and renovation at Seminary; and (5) the district is required to engage in a comprehensive analysis of the bus routes for Hopewell students in order to reduce the length of all such bus routes to the extent practicable.

This longstanding school desegregation case was initiated by the United States in 1970.  On February 21, 2018, the United States and the Jackson County School Board filed a  joint motion for declaration of partial unitary status and sought court approval of a stipulation  governing faculty and staff recruitment, hiring, and promotion, and student discipline.  On February 23, 2018,  the court granted the parties’ motion , declaring that the school district had achieved partial unitary status with respect to student assignment between schools, transportation, facilities, and extracurricular activities.  The court also approved the parties’ stipulation regarding faculty and staff recruitment, hiring, and promotion, and student discipline and will retain jurisdiction over these areas.  For more information, please see this press release .

This school desegregation lawsuit was initiated by the United States on June 8, 1966. In a decree dated August 1, 1969, the Court ordered a desegregation plan for the district's schools, subsequently modified by a 1970 order and 1971 consent decree . Pursuant to a Fifth Circuit Decision , dated July 13, 1979, the public laboratory schools at Grambling State University and Louisiana Tech University were added to the case. A 1984 consent decree addressed the desegregation obligations of the lab schools. In 2011, following a unitary status review, the Department of Justice submitted a status report to the Court identifying areas of noncompliance by the defendants. The school board filed responses to the status report on September 15, 2011 and October 15, 2011 . Grambling State University and Louisiana Tech University each filed responses on October 17, 2011. Following negotiations, the Department of Justice and the school board submitted a superseding consent order , approved by the Court on May 24, 2012, which granted the Board partial unitary status in the areas of faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. The superseding consent order required the board to implement a school pairing plan to desegregate the four K-5 elementary schools in the board's Ruston attendance zone and to implement revised intra-district student transfer policies. For additional information on the superseding consent order, please see this press release .

On June 2, 2015, the Court approved a supplemental consent order , in which the Board agreed to address the Division's concerns regarding the Board's classroom assignment practices at the four elementary schools located in the Ruston attendance zone. Under the supplemental consent order, the Board will implement the following key changes at the four elementary schools: (1) assign students to homerooms so that the percentage of black and white students in each homeroom reflects the percentage of black and white students in each grade level at each school; (2) refrain from grouping students into homerooms based on students' perceived abilities and ensure that students of all academic levels are assigned to each homeroom; (3) ensure that no homeroom class has more than forty percent special education inclusion students; and (4) transform the Advanced Learning Academy ("ALA") program into a school-wide, racially diverse enrichment program designed to develop the gifts and talents of all students (if the Board chooses to continue operating the ALA program). For additional information on the supplemental consent order, please see this press release .

In 2002 and 2003, private plaintiffs brought suits against the he Lowndes County school district asserting non-compliance with its desegregation obligations, primarily in West Lowndes, an almost all-black area of the district, pursuant to a pursuant to a desegregation order that the district has been operating under since 1970. In 2004, these complaints were consolidated with the United States’ case, and in January 2006, the Court signed a consent order requiring the district to make significant changes to further desegregation. The district was to make improvements to the virtually all-black high school to make them comparable to the majority white high schools including district requirements to: purchase land adjacent to the West Lowndes High School and build a baseball field, upgrade facilities at the virtually all-black high school to make them comparable to the majority white high schools, create band and football practice fields at the virtually all-black high school, remedy short-comings at the virtually all-black elementary and middle schools including upgrading certain classrooms, renovating an auditorium/gymnasium, and removing unseemly sewage lagoons on these premises, implement educational programming at the West Lowndes Middle and High Schools to foster future AP and advanced classes at the high school, teaching advanced classes (AP) on par with the array of course offerings at the majority white schools even if only requested by one child, and to cease using race-conscious policies in the selection of extracurricular activities such as class superlatives and homecoming courts.

In 2007, the Section determined the district was not in compliance with the 2006 order. Nonetheless, on August 21, 2008, the District filed a motion for unitary status. The Section opposed the district’s motion and moved to enforce the 2006 order on the grounds the district: (1) failed to built a baseball facility as ordered (2) failed to install facilities improvements properly resulting in leaks at the entryway to the building; (3) failed to develop policies and procedures related to advanced instruction; and (4) failed to recognize continued complaints of racial harassment and discrimination by community in the district’s majority white schools. On October 15, 2008, the parties withdrew their motions, initiated negotiations, and on February 3, 2009, the court entered a consent order requiring the district to repair the baseball field and entryway at the virtually-all-black high school, develop and support an advanced instruction curriculum (AP) at the virtually-all-black middle school and high school, and adopt and implement a non-discrimination policy to systemically address continued community and parent concerns.

In 1978, the United States sued the Marion County School District (Florida) for maintaining a segregated school system. In 1983, the district court approved a Stipulated Agreement of the parties that, among other things, implemented a plan for further desegregation of the district, including the conversion of two de jure and almost 100% black schools into a district-wide magnet. Since that time, the court entered a decree in 1995 and a modified decree in 2004 to resolve the outstanding desegregation issues. The 2004 modified decree clarified the requirements in the 1995 decree and set forth detailed provisions regarding student assignment (including a policy on out-of-area transfers), the magnet schools, new school construction, staff assignment and recruitment, and the district's reporting obligations.

After finding noncompliance with the extant desegregation order in this case, the Division negotiated a settlement agreement with the district in 2001. In 2003, the school district moved for unitary status and dismissal of the case despite its noncompliance with the 2001 agreement. The Division filed an opposition to the motion on grounds of noncompliance. Following briefing on the issues, the parties negotiated a new agreement that required the district to take specified steps in the areas of student and faculty assignment. Under the agreement , the district agreed to establish a magnet program at a historically black school, to strictly enforce its student transfer policies, and to assign faculty and staff in a way that does not perpetuate the historic racial identifiability of the district's schools. In 2007, the district again moved for unitary status. The Division filed an opposition and a motion for further relief on the grounds that the district had failed to comply with the portions of the 2003 agreement pertaining to transfer policies and faculty assignment.

On July 21, 1966, the United States initiated this lawsuit against the Richland Parish School District.  On July 31, 1969, the Court entered a decree setting forth a plan to desegregate the school district.   In 2010, the United States with the cooperation of the School Board began a comprehensive review of the School Board’s compliance with its obligations under the operative court orders in this case.   Upon completion of its review, the United States concluded that the School Board satisfied the requirements for unitary status with respect to facilities, extracurricular activities, and transportation.  On March 17, 2013, the Court granted the District’s c onsent order declaring partial unitary status and dismissal in the areas of facilities, transportation and extracurricular activities.  The parties continue to negotiate the remaining areas of student assignment, faculty, and staff.

This longstanding desegregation case was filed by the United States in 1970.  On August 14, 1970, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, issued an order requiring the District to adopt and implement a school desegregation plan.  On August 17, 1971, the Court amended its previous desegregation order and required the District to implement a student assignment plan in accordance with the principles established in Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1970), and to follow provisions regarding faculty desegregation, transportation, school construction and site selection, student transfers, and extracurricular activities.  On May 7, 1980, the Court removed the case from its active civil docket but the District remained subject to the 1971 Order, including its reporting obligations.  On October 26, 2016, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ Joint Motion for Declaration of Partial Unitary Status and for Approval of Stipulation regarding Faculty and Staff Recruiting .  The order declares the District partially unitary with respect to student assignment, including student transfers, facilities, transportation, and extracurricular activities.  In addition, the order approves the Parties’ Stipulation Regarding Faculty and Staff Recruitment .  The Section is monitoring compliance with the 2016 Order and Stipulation.

In this longstanding school desegregation case, the district court entered an order on December 18, 2014, approving the proposed consent order jointly submitted by the United States and the Suffolk City School Board. The consent order modified the School Board's student assignment plan by establishing zone lines for a new elementary school and implementing a voluntary majority-to-minority ("M-to-M") transfer program that furthers desegregation in the district. On March 20, 2017, the district court approved a subsequent consent order that declares the district has achieved partial unitary status in the areas of facilities, extracurricular activities, transportation, and faculty and staff assignment. The consent order retains judicial supervision over the area of student assignment--including the implementation and expansion of the M-to-M program, anticipated changes to school attendance zones, and student disciplinary practices--through the 2019-20 school year. For more information, please see this press release .

The United States filed this school desegregation case in 1980.  The Court entered a Consent Order shortly thereafter on February 8, 1980.  On April 17, 1980, the Court approved the District’s Desegregation Plan, which went into effect for the 1981-1982 school year and was subsequently modified with the Court’s approval in 1992, 2002, 2010, and 2015.  In the fall of 2017, the District proposed a new student assignment plan for elementary and middle schools called “Focus 2018.”  On April 30, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion and stipulation to obtain court approval of Focus 2018 and address the School Board’s forthcoming steps to further desegregation in other areas of the case.  On June 7, 2018, the Court approved the new plan and the stipulation, which required the parties to identify agreed upon action steps regarding the other areas by August 31, 2018.  On that date, the parties filed a joint motion and stipulation regarding consent decree compliance.  On September 4, 2018, the Court approved this second stipulation , which requires the District to further desegregation by ensuring non-discrimination in student discipline, equitable student transportation, and continued review of high school programs and student enrollment practices.  The stipulation also established monitoring and reporting requirements to promote District compliance with the Consent Order.

On July 15, 2015, the United States sent its findings  to the State of Georgia stating that the State’s administration of the Georgia Network of Educational and Therapeutic Support (GNETS) program violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by unnecessarily segregating students with disabilities from their peers in school.  The State fails to ensure that students with behavior-related disabilities receive services and supports that could enable them to remain in, or return to, the most integrated educational placements appropriate to their needs.

On August 23, 2016, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia in federal district court to remedy violations of the ADA pertaining to the State’s failure to provide thousands of public school students with behavior-related disabilities with appropriate mental health and therapeutic educational services and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the manner in which Georgia plans, funds, administers, and delivers its mental health and therapeutic educational services through the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support Program (“GNETS Program”), students with disabilities are unnecessarily segregated and provided unequal educational opportunities in GNETS Centers and Classrooms, where they are isolated from their non-disabled peers, when they could be served in general education classrooms. The lawsuit further alleges that other students with behavior-related disabilities are placed at serious risk of segregation in the GNETS Program.  For more information, please see this press release .

In this desegregation case, the Section determined the McComb Municipal Separate School District had violated the terms of the governing desegregation order and federal law by clustering white students into particular classrooms in a manner resulted in a significant number of segregated, all-black classrooms at the District’s two elementary schools. Additionally, the District was impermissibly using raced-based procedures to select students for certain school-sponsored accolades, including McComb High School’s homecoming queen and court. These procedures had the effect of establishing separate elections for black and white candidates.

In March 2004, the district moved for unitary status. The United States filed a response and a motion for further relief . After discovery, the United States filed an opposition to the District’s motion for unitary status, which stated the United States' objections to unitary status in the areas of student assignment and extracurricular activities, but stipulated to unitary status and dismissal in the areas of transportation, hiring of faculty and administrators, facilities, and resource management. On July 13, 2006, the Court held a hearing to address the areas of dispute. The Court issued a memorandum opinion and order on April 18, 2008, that denied the district’s motion for unitary status and ordered the district to devise an assignment policy that results in meaningful racial interaction for all of the students attending the two elementary schools in question. To execute the requirements of the Court’s order, the court entered a consent decree on September 18, 2008, negotiated by the parties that establishes protocols for student assignment at the two elementary schools and establishes voting procedures for McComb High School’s homecoming court.

The Simpson County School District is under a desegregation order and a 1983 Consent Decree specifically governing employment procedures. The District moved for unitary status in November 2001, and the United States thereafter participated in discovery to evaluate the district's progress toward complete desegregation. The United States learned in March 2003 that the District was not following the specific hiring procedures mandated by the 1983 Consent Decree. To address allegations of racial discrimination in employment, the Consent Decree requires the District actively to recruit black applicants for faculty and administrative positions and to do so by advertising all such vacancies outside the district in regional newspapers and with various universities in the state. The District, however, followed a policy of advertising vacancies first within the District and then outside the district only if no qualified applicants were found within. The United States learned that the District sought to fill three vacancies in principal positions this past winter following that practice rather than the procedures mandated by the Consent Decree. Because the District employed no black personnel with the administrative certification necessary for the positions, the District made the positions available only to white persons and considered no black applicants for the job. The practice therefore contravened the purpose of the 1983 Consent Decree, and the United States filed a motion with a supporting memorandum in April 2003 and a reply to enforce the employment procedures detailed therein. A hearing was held on the motion in July 2003, and the court subsequently granted the United States' motion. The court's order required the District to reopen the three principal positions for the 2004-05 school year and to advertise the vacancies according to the requirements of the Consent Decree. Subsequently, the district moved for unitary status and we opposed. The court ruled in our favor and the district has appealed.

In this longstanding desegregation case, the Wayne County School District is subject to several court orders prohibiting the use of race in classroom assignment decisions and inter-district student transfers that impede the desegregation of the district's schools. In an August 10, 1970 order, the court ordered the district to adopt a desegregation plan, which was modified by several subsequent orders. On May 16, 2006, the court approved a consent order, which declared the district partially unitary in the areas of faculty assignment, staff assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. The 2006 consent order required the district to address the impermissible use of race in classroom assignment decisions at Waynesboro Elementary School (WES). On August 8, 2008, the court approved a consent order increasing the district's reporting requirements. In 2011, the United States notified the District of its determination that WES officials continued to use race as a factor in classroom assignment decisions and that white students residing in a majority-black attendance zone were impermissibly transferring to schools in a majority-white zone. To address these issues, the parties agreed to a consent order , approved by the court on January 3, 2012, requiring the district to adopt a random assignment system for classroom assignment at WES and to take steps to stop impermissible student transfers.

In December of 2009, the Section received a complaint from the Asian American Legal Defense Fund (AALDEF) on behalf of community advocates and Asian students at South Philadelphia High School (SPHS) in Philadelphia, PA that alleged numerous instances of national origin discrimination. This discrimination took many forms, including indifferent reaction to persistent verbal and physical peer harassment of Asian students. This discrimination culminated in one well-publicized instance where Asian students were violently attacked by their peers in and around school grounds. These attacks led to roughly a dozen Asian students being sent to the hospital, twenty-two suspension hearings and the transfer of several students to disciplinary or other schools.

After a lengthy investigation the United States filed a complaint and settlement agreement against the School District of Philadelphia and the School Reform Commission on December 15, 2010. The United States alleged violations of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act stemming from defendants’ failure to ameliorate the hostile environment for Asian students at SPHS, and further charged that defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution due to their deliberate indifference to known instances of severe and pervasive harassment. The settlement agreement obliges defendants to develop an action plan to remedy the transgressions alleged in the United States’ complaint. The Section, in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, is currently monitoring the defendants’ performance under the action plan to ensure that there is no recurrence of the events that gave rise to the complaint.

In this school construction case, the Section investigated the school district's plans to build a new elementary school in a particular section of Tunica County, Mississippi. This district has a majority black population, and concerns were raised that the proposed school would serve primarily white students and would cause further housing segregation in the county.

Because the school district was under order to desegregate its schools, the district had to obtain the court's approval for its plan. The Section submitted a brief providing the relevant legal standards for evaluating both the need for a new school and the appropriateness of the proposed location. Shortly thereafter, the parties entered into a consent order . As a result of the November 29, 1999 consent order, the District’s new elementary school was built two miles south of the originally proposed location, at a site that is closer to existing black communities.

In the course of reviewing the West Carroll Parish school district's compliance with its desegregation orders, the Section identified zone jumping within the district and student transfers from outside of the district. As a result, the United States negotiated Agreed Modifications to the Residency Verification and Transfer Provisions of the 1991 Consent Order , which were approved by the Court on August 11, 2003. The Section continues to monitor the district’s compliance with these strengthened transfer obligations and the elimination of its race-based homecoming election practices.

To address the persistence of three virtually all white schools and two other racially identifiable schools in this eight-school district, the Section proposed five student assignment plans to further school desegregation. The district rejected the proposed plans, and the Section filed a motion for further relief on November 29, 2005. The United States argued that the district never desegregated these three white schools and that the pre- Swann desegregation plan implemented by the district falls short of eliminating the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable. The district filed an opposition, which also served as a motion for unitary status, and the Section filed a reply .

On December 22, 2006, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment , arguing that the evidence obtained in discovery established that the district had failed to eliminate its one-race schools to the extent practicable. The district moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had achieved unitary status in the area of student assignment to schools. The United States filed an opposition to the district's motion on January 12, 2007, and a reply in support of its own motion on January 26, 2007. On February 14, 2007, the court issued a ruling granting the United States' summary judgment motion and denying that of the district. The court found that the district had failed to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable and ordered that the trial set for February 26, 2007, proceed to consider an appropriate student assignment plan. In lieu of going to trial, the district and the United States reached agreement on a new desegregation plan in a three-year consent order , which the court approved on March 21, 2007.

On April 10, 2012, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reached a resolution agreement with the University of California, San Diego ("UCSD"), in San Diego, Calif., to resolve an investigation into complaints of racial harassment against African-American students on campus.

The investigation and settlement focused on multiple incidents beginning in February 2010, including public displays of nooses and a Ku Klux Klan-style hood, and the hosting of an off-campus party where students were invited to dress as stereotypes of African-Americans, as well as UCSD's response to the incidents. Following DOJ's and OCR's investigation, UCSD voluntarily entered into a resolution agreement with the departments.

Under the terms of the resolution agreement, UCSD will take steps to prevent racial harassment on campus, respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and eliminate any hostile environment resulting from harassment. The university has agreed to revise its campus policies and procedures related to racial harassment to ensure they are consistent with federal civil rights laws; maintain an Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints of harassment and discrimination; and provide mandatory trainings for staff and students on the university's anti-discrimination policies and procedures. The university also voluntarily initiated a number of additional programs to address campus climate issues, and the departments will monitor the implementation of those programs to evaluate their impact on resolving the departments' concerns. For more information, please see this press release .

On March 18, 2024, the Department  notified the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) that the University had violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  The Department found that from 2015 to 2020, UMBC failed to respond adequately to known allegations of sex discrimination in the Athletics Department.  As a result, a former head coach engaged in sex-based harassment, including sexual assault, of male student-athletes, as well as discrimination on the basis of sex of female student-athletes, on an ongoing basis for years. 

On April 3, 2024, the Department and UMBC reached a settlement agreement to address UMBC’s noncompliance with Title IX.  The agreement followed the Department’s March 18, 2024 letter notifying UMBC that it did not comply with Title IX when, between 2015 and 2020, it failed to respond adequately to known allegations of sex discrimination in the Athletics Department.  Under the agreement’s terms, UMBC will, among other things, ensure sufficient staffing and funding to maintain an effective Title IX compliance program; employ full-time staff to support individuals who have experienced sexual assault; promote greater awareness of its revised Title IX policy and protocols; provide targeted training to student-athletes and Athletics Department staff; create a policy outlining behavioral expectations for coaching staff; and implement climate surveys to identify and respond to the needs of student-athletes. The agreement also requires UMBC to pay up to $4.14 million in financial relief to individuals who the Department found experienced sex discrimination by the former head coach.  The Department will monitor the UMBC’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2028-2029 academic year.  For more information, please see the press release and plain-language summary of the agreement.  

University of Montana-Missoula

On May 1, 2012, the Civil Rights Division formally launched a Title IX compliance review and Title IV investigation of the University of Montana-Missoula's (the University) handling of student reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment. That same day, the Division launched a companion investigation of the University's campus police under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Section 14141), and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Safe Streets Act). See May 1, 2012 Press Release .

Shortly thereafter, the Division combined its Title IX compliance review with one initiated by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Title IX and Title IV both prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs. After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the University's policies, grievance procedures, investigative practices, training, and responses to reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliation, the Division and OCR identified a number of areas where the University needed to take further steps to ensure compliance with Title IX and Title IV.

On May 9, 2013, the Division and OCR reached a resolution agreement with the University to resolve their findings under Title IX and Title IV, and the Division reached a separate agreement to resolve its findings under Section 14141 and the Safe Streets Act. Under the terms of the Title IX-Title IV agreement , the University agreed to take significant, additional steps to: prevent sexual harassment and assault; to respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and retaliation; and to fully eliminate the effects of the hostile environment resulting from such harassment. These steps include: adopting revised policies and procedures for handling sex-based discrimination complaints, conducting training for all employees and students, disseminating information more clearly and broadly about how to report sexual harassment and assault, conducting annual climate surveys to assess students' knowledge of these issues and any barriers to their reporting, and evaluating the effect of the Agreement's remedies over time to ensure that they are effective. The Division and OCR will carefully monitor the University's implementation of the Agreement to ensure that the relief it provides reaches students quickly.

On December 5, 2014, the Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office, New Mexico, formally launched a Title IX compliance review and Title IV investigation of the University of New Mexico's (the University) handling of student reports of sexual assault. Title IX and Title IV both prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs. After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the University's policies, grievance procedures, investigative practices, training, and responses to reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment, DOJ issued a Letter of Findings on April 16, 2016 which identified a number of areas where the University needed to take further steps to ensure compliance with Title IX and Title IV.

On October 17, 2016, DOJ reached an agreement with the University to resolve their findings under Title IX and Title IV. Under the terms of the Title IX-Title IV agreement, the University agreed to take significant, additional steps to: prevent sexual harassment and assault; to respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault; and to fully eliminate the effects of the hostile environment resulting from such harassment. These steps include: adopting revised policies and procedures for handling complaints of sexual harassment, conducting training for all students and responsible employees, disseminating information more clearly and broadly about how to report sexual harassment and assault, conducting annual climate surveys to assess students' knowledge of these issues and any barriers to their reporting, and evaluating the effect of the Agreement's remedies over time to ensure that they are effective. DOJ will carefully monitor the University's implementation of the Agreement to ensure that the relief it provides reaches students quickly. For more information, please see this press release .

On November 10, 2010, the Section entered into a Settlement Agreement with the University of South Carolina to resolve the Section’s investigation into allegations of race discrimination on campus.  Under the Agreement, the University agreed to improve its policies and practices for receiving, investigating, and resolving complaints discrimination in a timely and effective manner and agreed to train students and employees on their responsibilities under the University’s policies, including when and how to report incidents of racial harassment or discrimination.  Under the Agreement, the University agreed to adopt revised anti-discrimination and harassment policies before the start of the 2011-12 school year and to initiate training during the spring 2012 semester. On September 6, 2011, the Agreement was modified . For more information, please see the press release .

In this matter involving the University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC), Tennessee, the Department investigated a complaint alleging, in part, that UTHSC violated of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq ., by failing to reasonably modify policies, practices, and procedures when it employed a threat assessment process and placed a student on a mandatory medical leave of absence from her academic program because of her mental health condition without first considering accommodations to facilitate her continued enrollment.  On July 22, 2016, the Department and UTHSC entered into a Settlement Agreement that prohibits the university from discriminating against any person on the basis of disability and from excluding any person with a disability from participation in or benefiting from its services, programs, or activities.  In addition, the Agreement requires UTHSC to change its leave and withdrawal policies, and provide annual ADA training to faculty and staff.  UTHSC also must ensure that the process it uses to evaluate a student’s request for accommodation or reasonable modification of policies is conducted independently from other campus administrative or discipline processes, and that any threat assessment involving a student with a disability is supported by an appropriate factual record and based on legitimate safety concerns, and not on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about persons with disabilities.  Finally, the Agreement allows the complainant to recover $45,000 in compensation, and requires UTHSC to amend the student's academic record; destroy specified documents, including the complainant’s medical records; and take other steps to remedy the alleged discrimination.

After learning of allegations that Utah State University (the “University”) failed to respond to numerous reports of serious student-on-student sexual assault, the Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah (collectively, the “United States”) initiated a Title IX compliance review of the University.  The United States reviewed the University’s response(s) to sexual assault and harassment complaint(s) over a more than four-year period.  After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the University’s policies, grievance procedures, training, student education efforts, and responses to reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliation, the United States identified areas of noncompliance with Title IX.

On February 12, 2020, the United States reached a settlement agreement with the University to address the areas of noncompliance.  Under the terms of the agreement, the University agreed to take significant steps including, among others: revising its notice of nondiscrimination and relevant sexual harassment policies, procedures, and practices; responding promptly, equitably, and adequately to known sexual harassment that has created a hostile environment; and training students and employees on University policies and federal laws pertaining to sexual harassment, how and to whom they can report allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation, the resources available and how to access them, and the University’s Title IX grievance procedures and potential outcomes.  The United States will carefully monitor the University’s implementation of the agreement, which will remain in place through the 2022-2023 academic year.  For more information, please see the press release . 

On July 28, 2020, the United States executed a letter agreement with the University, extending the deadlines in the original settlement agreement. On May 20, 2024, the United States and Utah State University executed an extension to the agreement through the 2024-25 academic year.

On January 13, 2003, the Westfield High School L.I.F.E. Club and some of its student members filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, alleging that the Westfield Public Schools and officials discriminated against their religious beliefs by refusing to allow them to distribute pamphlets containing a religious message, even though defendants permitted the distribution of secular pamphlets by these same students the year before. The plaintiffs alleged that this violated their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and their rights to equal protection under the laws pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.

The United States filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in this matter, as the United States is charged with enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief if a school deprives students of the equal protections of the laws. The Court granted the United States' motion on February 26, 2003.

The United States filed a brief in support of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction. The United States argued that the school's restrictions on plaintiffs' speech violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments proscribing government regulations of speech that discriminate against a particular point of view – here a religious viewpoint.

On March 17, 2003, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from prohibiting the students and the L.I.F.E. Club from distributing literature to fellow students, during non-instructional time, based on the content of the literature.

On June 16, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Decree in which the district agreed to use a revised Free Speech Policy and not to impose any prior restraints upon the plaintiffs to distribute literature unless the distribution failed to comply with the policy.

In this matter involving the Westminster Public Schools, the Section and the District of Colorado USAO examined whether the District was identifying and serving its English Learner (“EL”) students in compliance with the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).   EL students comprise approximately 46% of the District’s student population.  On February 27, 2018, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s noncompliance with the EEOA and ensure that EL students receive the support they need to succeed in the District’s educational programs.  Under the agreement, the District will: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; ensure that all ELs, including those with disabilities, receive adequate language services so that they can become proficient in English; provide ELs with access to appropriate grade-level content within the District’s Competency Based System; train teachers and administrators who implement the EL program adequately; monitor the academic performance of current, former, and long-term EL students; evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time; and ensure meaningful communication with Limited English Proficient parents about District and school programs and activities.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place for three full school years.

On August 31, 2015, the Division formally launched a Title IX investigation and compliance review of Wheaton College after receiving a complaint regarding the College’s handling of a student’s report of sexual assault.  The Division reviewed the College’s response to sexual assault and harassment complaints over an approximately three and a half-year period.  After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the College’s policies, grievance procedures, investigative practices, training, student education efforts, and responses to reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliation, the Division identified areas where the College needed to take further steps to ensure compliance with Title IX and its regulations. On September 21, 2106, the Division reached a settlement agreement with the College to address these areas and bring it into compliance.  Under the terms of the agreement, the College agreed to take significant, additional steps to: prevent sexual harassment and assault; respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and retaliation; and fully eliminate the effects of the hostile environment resulting from such harassment.  These steps include, among others: revising its policies, procedures, and investigative practices to ensure the prompt and equitable resolution of sexual assault and harassment allegations; adequately investigating and responding to allegations of retaliation by students who reported sexual harassment or assault; taking sufficient action to fully eliminate sex-based hostile environments; and adequately training individuals designated to coordinate its Title IX efforts. The Division will carefully monitor the College’s implementation of the agreement, which will remain in place for at least three school years.  For more information, please see this press release.

In this matter involving the Wicomico County Public School District in Maryland, the Section conducted an investigation into complaints that the District’s student discipline policies resulted in the discriminatory suspension of black and Latino students and students with disabilities, in violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq., which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, or religion in public schools and institutions of higher education, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, which prohibits discrimination based on disability in services, programs and activities provided by State and local government entities.

After the investigation, the United States and the District negotiated and entered a voluntary out-of-court settlement agreement on January 19, 2017. Under the settlement agreement, the district will take steps to create positive and inclusive learning environments in all Wicomico County schools, including by timely responding to requests for reasonable modifications to District disciplinary policies, practices and procedures; providing students with supports and interventions before excluding them from school; limiting the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; ensuring that discipline consequences are fair and consistent; establishing clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention and other emergency response measures are appropriate; providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and building data-driven monitoring and accountability systems.

On July 2, 2024, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Wichita Public Schools to address discrimination against 1) Black students in the district’s administration of school discipline and the referral of student conduct to law enforcement, and 2) students with disabilities in the district’s use of seclusion and restraint and operation of specialized schools.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.   Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students on the basis of race or disability. The district will, among other steps: eliminate the use of seclusion; restrict restraint of students to instances when their behavior poses an imminent danger of serious physical harm to the student or another person; provide appropriate interventions and supports to students with disabilities; develop a district-wide code of conduct, formalize and standardize  dress code policies, and create a behavior intervention protocol to ensure the nondiscriminatory administration of discipline and to prohibit unnecessary exclusion of students from the school environment; create a system of district-level monitoring of schools’ administration of student discipline to ensure nondiscrimination; prohibit school security and law enforcement from becoming involved in minor student misbehavior that does not pose a safety concern, thereby avoiding criminalizing routine school discipline matters; ensure that it employs professionals with the requisite expertise and training to run and staff specialized schools for students with disabilities; provide counseling and compensatory education to students who have been repeatedly secluded; and create an office to monitor the district’s seclusion and restraint practices to ensure compliance with the agreement and assist district staff in providing required interventions and supports.  For more information, please see this letter  (in Spanish ), press release  (in Spanish ) and summary of the agreement  (in Spanish ).

In this matter involving the Worcester, Massachusetts public school system, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 ("EEOA"). After determining that the school district was not complying with the requirements of the EEOA, the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement with the school district on January 26, 2009. Under this agreement, the school district agreed to take the following steps, among others, to: establish protocols for registration and identification; train faculty and intake staff concerning proper data entry for tracking; ensure timely, adequate and appropriate ELL services; provide translation services for parents and guardians, train ELL teachers, provide appropriate materials for ELL classes, ensure special education students are not denied appropriate ELL services, and monitor current and exited ELLs.

On July 10, 2012, the United States entered into a supplemental agreement with the school district that addressed, among other things, the school district's duty to: adequately test students for English language proficiency; properly train personnel involved in the identification and registration of ELLs; monitor and track the academic achievement of former ELLs; and ensure that classroom instruction provided to ELLs is delivered by teachers who are qualified to teach ELLs. After determining that the school district was still not in compliance with the 2008 and 2012 Agreements, the United States entered into a comprehensive second supplemental agreement with the district on July 11, 2016.  The 2016 agreement replaces the 2008 Settlement Agreement and 2012 Supplemental Agreement and aims to address, among other issues: inadequate ESL and sheltered content instruction for ELLs, the need for more qualified ESL and sheltered content teachers, services and procedures for ELLs with disabilities, and insufficient translations and qualified interpreters for LEP parents.

Two real examples of racism at work and what happened next

Content / trigger warning.

We always try our best to give users the facts of each case, some of which include harmful language and descriptions of awful behaviour. The following examples might be emotionally challenging to read, especially if you’re going through something similar. This can manifest feelings of discomfort and upset, among other unpleasant emotions. We encourage you to reach out to friends or family for additional support if this content is particularly distressing. These stories are not for shock value, but to give you a sense of how you could be successful. We are here to support you in your journey in fighting back against your toxic workplace.

If you’re dealing with racism at work, you’re not alone.  According to Financial News , race discrimination claims to Employment Tribunals rose by 48% in the UK in 2020. In this article, we look at two real life examples of direct race discrimination claims. We explore which arguments were successful, which failed, and why.

What is racial discrimination?

There are 4 types of race discrimination:

• direct race discrimination
• indirect race discrimination
• harassment related to race
• victimisation because of raising or supporting a concern about race.

In this article, we deal with direct race discrimination , which means being treated less favourably because of your race, which is a “protected characteristic”. Learn more about the 9 protected characteristics .

These days, direct racial discrimination in the workplace is often less obvious -- it’s unlikely that you’ll be told outright, ‘you’re not receiving benefit X because you’re of race Y’. It’s more likely that an event, or series of events, will happen which suggest racial discrimination or unconscious bias.

That causes a difficulty of proving discrimination or unconscious bias. In both of these examples, we’ll show how proof makes the difference in winning or losing a claim.

Example 1: a direct race discrimination case where a white staff member was treated more favourably

What happened.

Balin was a security guard for a company which provided services to a large department store in London. One day, Balin was given door opening duty with another security guard.  The other security guard was then called to a different task so a supervisor, Fraser, stepped in. The department store had a very specific door opening protocol, which was not properly completed. As a result, customers were unable to enter the store.

Balin already had 2 written warnings on his file for (1) failing to report for 2 shifts and (2) sitting down at work when he was supposed to stand at all times. Balin’s employer started disciplinary proceedings against him, resulting in his dismissal. Balin raised a claim for direct discrimination on the basis of his race, which was Bangladeshi.

Balin’s complaint focused on 3 actions taken by his employer:

• the serving of an invalid written warning
• the failure of his employer to rescind that written warning and
• his dismissal.

The decision

The Employment Tribunal didn’t agree that acts 1 and 2 were discriminatory. This was, in part, because Balin didn’t provide any evidence that a colleague of a different race had been, or would be, treated more favourably for a similar lapse. In other words, Balin didn’t provide a ‘comparator’.

However, Balin was successful in his third argument - that he was dismissed because of racial discrimination. Balin used Fraser (the supervisor who stepped in to perform door opening duty) as a comparator. Fraser was white. Following the incident:

• Fraser was given the opportunity to explain his version of events. Balin wasn’t.
• Fraser was given the opportunity to provide a written statement. Balin wasn’t.  
• HR advised that if Fraser was partially responsible for completing the door opening protocol, his conduct should be investigated too. That never happened.

It wasn’t just the successful use of a comparator that won the argument. Throughout the disciplinary process, the employer made a large number of procedural errors:

• Balin’s repeated requests to see CCTV footage of the incident were denied, even though others had seen this.
• He was kept waiting at a meeting for 2 hours.
• He was given only 2 days' notice of a meeting.
• An investigative report was factually incorrect, stating that doors were left open, rather than being left shut.
• A report said Balin had worked there for 2 years, which he hadn’t.
• Balin was given the wrong address for a meeting.
• A meeting was conducted in a communal room, with other staff (including Fraser) coming in and out.  

The Employment Tribunal decided that due to the number and type of procedural errors, discrimination could be inferred. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the employer had done enough to show that they had a good reason for the treatment, which did not relate to race.

What you can learn from this

Identifying an appropriate comparator is a crucial part of demonstrating direct discrimination. When Balin presented an example of a white staff member being treated more favourably than him in a very similar situation, he was able to show that he had suffered racial discrimination at work.  

However, don’t be discouraged if you’re having difficulty finding a comparator. If an actual comparator isn’t available, a Tribunal may be able to construct a hypothetical comparator. This means someone whose circumstances are not exactly the same as yours, but similar enough to show that treatment was because of your protected characteristic. Read more about hypothetical comparators here.

We may not immediately think of procedural irregularities as being obviously discriminatory behaviour, but they were in this case. This highlights the importance of gathering evidence (you can use Valla to do this). Balin’s third argument included details of many actions which, taken alone, may have been forgivable but, taken together, constituted racial discrimination.

Read Balin’s full Employment Tribunal decision

Example 2: a direct race discrimination case involving mistreatment of a Black employee

Sergeant P was an infantry soldier in the Army. Following a period of long term sickness absence, he was posted to the Training Wing of the Military Correction Training Centre. Sergeant P was subject to an appraisal process known as a Soldiers Joint Appraisal Report (SJAR).

He brought an Employment Tribunal claim against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for direct discrimination on the basis of his race, which was Black Afro-Caribbean.

The complaint was based on 3 events:

• Comments in a WhatsApp group chat: Sergeant P read messages which referred to his absence from work: “...he [Sergeant P] gets fecking everywhere… except work”.
• A critical SJAR: Sergeant P was criticised as “happy to do the minimum expected of him”. At no stage prior had he been informed of any shortcomings in his performance. Sergeant P also relied upon an email which included the phrase “people like him”.
• The ‘Right Turn’ course: the SJAR claimed that Sergeant P was observed instructing the ‘Right Turn’ course. His performance was rated as poor. However, Sergeant P didn’t actually teach the course. In fact, the course was taught by the only other Black Sergeant at the training wing, Sergeant R.

Sergeant P argued that acts 1 and 2 were the result of a stereotypical assumption that Black Afro-Caribbean people are lazy and that act 3 was a result of confusing 2 soldiers just because they were of the same race.

The Employment Tribunal didn’t agree that the comments on the WhatsApp chat were discriminatory - they were insulting and inappropriate, but not racially motivated. The comments were an expression of frustration that Sergeant P had been absent from work for long periods of time. The Tribunal had no basis to believe that equally inappropriate comments wouldn’t have been made about a white person who was absent from work for long periods of time.  

Sergeant P’s second complaint (the negative SJAR report) was also unsuccessful. The Tribunal acknowledged the sad reality that the stereotype of Afro-Caribbean people as lazy does exist. However, that had no impact on the assessment of the facts of the case. The Tribunal said the evidence demonstrated that the comments in the SJAR were based on actual feedback, not a stereotypical assessment of Sergeant P as an Afro-Caribbean. The Tribunal reviewed Sergeant R’s SJAR. It was substantively different. This indicated that the two Black sergeants were being assessed individually. In the context it was said, the Tribunal found the “people like him” reference to mean poor performing soldiers, not Afro-Caribbean soldiers.  

However, the third argument (the ‘Right Turn’ course) was successful. The Tribunal agreed the mistaken observation and the race of the Sergeant who taught the course was enough to infer that the MoD could have committed unlawful discrimination. It was then for the MoD to demonstrate that race played no part whatsoever in the mistake, which they were unable to do.

Bad treatment of an employee who has a protected characteristic isn’t enough to establish a case of direct discrimination. There must be ‘something more’ to link the bad treatment to the protected characteristic. This shows the importance of gathering as much evidence as possible.

Read the full Employment Tribunal decision for Sergeant P

How to progress your race discrimination claim

More and more people are standing up against racism at work. If you think you may have a case for racial discrimination, our platform can help you understand the law, gather your evidence and start a claim in the Employment Tribunal. If you need to consult a lawyer, this could save you a lot of time, and money by having it all in one place. Sign up for your free account.

Get the free toolkit

Do you have a story like this.

Show people being treated unfairly at work that they're not alone, and what others did in similar situations.

Share your story to help others like you.

Get our latest updates, guides and news

Our customers rate us excellent.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 18 November 2020

Racial discrimination and health: a prospective study of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom

• Ruth A. Hackett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5428-2950 1 , 2 ,
• Amy Ronaldson 3 ,
• Kamaldeep Bhui 4 ,
• Andrew Steptoe 2 &
• Sarah E. Jackson 2  

BMC Public Health volume  20 , Article number:  1652 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

48k Accesses

56 Citations

63 Altmetric

Metrics details

Racism has been linked with poor health in studies in the United States. Little is known about prospective associations between racial discrimination and health outcomes in the United Kingdom (UK).

Data were from 4883 ethnic minority (i.e. non-white) participants in the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Perceived discrimination in the last 12 months on the basis of ethnicity or nationality was reported in 2009/10. Psychological distress, mental functioning, life satisfaction, self-rated health, physical functioning and reports of limiting longstanding illness were assessed in 2009/10 and 2011/12. Linear and logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, income, education and ethnicity. Prospective analyses also adjusted for baseline status on the outcome being evaluated.

Racial discrimination was reported by 998 (20.4%) of the sample. Cross-sectionally, those who reported racial discrimination had a greater likelihood on average of limiting longstanding illness (odds ratio (OR) = 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49; 2.13) and fair/poor self-rated health (OR = 1.50; 95% CI 1.24; 1.82) than those who did not report racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was associated with greater psychological distress ( B  = 1.11, 95% CI 0.88; 1.34), poorer mental functioning ( B  = − 3.61; 95% CI -4.29; − 2.93), poorer physical functioning ( B  = − 0.86; 95% CI -1.50; − 0.27), and lower life satisfaction ( B  = − 0.40, 95% CI -0.52; − 0.27). Prospectively, those who reported racial discrimination had a greater likelihood on average of limiting longstanding illness (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.01; 1.69) and fair/poor self-rated health (OR = 1.30; 95% CI 1.00; 1.69), than those who did not report racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was associated increased psychological distress ( B  = 0.52, 95% CI 0.20; 0.85) and poorer mental functioning ( B  = − 1.77; 95% CI -2.70; − 0.83) over two-year follow-up, adjusting for baseline scores.

Conclusions

UK adults belonging to ethnic minority groups who perceive racial discrimination experience poorer mental and physical health than those who do not. These results highlight the need for effective interventions to combat racial discrimination in order to reduce inequalities in health.

Peer Review reports

Discrimination is defined as the differential treatment of an individual based on a socially ascribed characteristic [ 1 ]. In the United Kingdom (UK), the 1965 Race Relations Act [ 2 ] outlawed discrimination on the grounds of colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins. Race remains a protected characteristic under contemporary equality law [ 3 ]. Despite this legislative effort, ethnic inequalities in education, work, health and criminal justice remain [ 4 ].

Discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin is regarded as the most common type of prejudice in Europe, with 64% of adults perceiving racial discrimination to be widespread in a survey of 27,718 people [ 5 ]. In Britain in 2017, 26% of a representative sample described themselves as racially prejudiced [ 6 ], and race continues to be the most common motivator for hate crime incidents [ 7 , 8 ]. Against the backdrop of the vote to leave the European Union (Brexit), hostility towards migrants and the growth in right-wing nationalist movements [ 9 ], these figures reflect a rise in reported racial discrimination in both the UK and Europe [ 5 , 6 ].

A growing body of research has investigated discrimination as a determinant of mental health [ 10 , 11 , 12 ] and to a lesser extent physical health [ 11 ]. In an early meta-analysis of 110 studies, discrimination was linked with poor mental health, including psychological distress and decreased life satisfaction [ 11 ]. A sub-set of 36 studies in the review investigated associations with physical health. Significant associations were detected in a pooled analysis with various outcomes including hypertension and acute cardiovascular responses to laboratory discrimination protocols. A more recent meta-analysis of 328 studies focusing on discrimination and mental health outcomes alone, again observed that those who perceived discrimination had poorer mental health [ 12 ]. This finding was also detected in an independent analysis of 211 cross-sectional studies linking racial discrimination with poor mental health [ 12 ].

Racism is a recognised social determinant of health and a driver of ethnic inequities in health [ 13 ]. It can be understood as a complex, organised system embedded in socio-political and historical contexts, that involves classifying ethnic groups into social hierarchies. These groups are ideologically assigned differential value, which drives disparities in access to power, resources and opportunities [ 14 , 15 ]. It occurs at both structural and individual levels (self-reported experiences of racial discrimination) [ 14 , 15 ].

Several reviews and meta-analyses have focused solely on perceived racial discrimination and health outcomes [ 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. The largest study to date meta-analysed the results from 293 studies and assessed both mental and physical health outcomes [ 16 ]. In this analysis, racial discrimination was associated with poorer overall mental health including greater psychological distress, poorer life satisfaction and poorer general mental functioning in independent analyses. Racism was also linked with poorer general health and poorer physical health overall, though few effects remained significant when looking at specific physical health outcomes in separate analyses.

Racial discrimination at the structural and individual level is theorised to impact health through several mechanisms [ 15 ]. At the structural level racial discrimination may operate through the unfair allocation of societal resources that are determinants of health (e.g. education, employment, housing) [ 14 , 15 ] and through differential access to healthcare, as well as perceived poorer quality of care [ 19 ]. Another mechanism linking racial discrimination and health could be through the dysregulation of stress-related biological processes [ 20 ]. Frequent exposure to racial discrimination is a chronic stressor and has been linked with dysregulated cardiovascular, neuroendocrine and inflammatory processes [ 21 , 22 ] which in turn impact both physical and mental health. Individual health risk (e.g. smoking, alcohol consumption) could link perceived racial discrimination and health, as means of coping with or avoiding discrimination [ 23 , 24 ].

Although a growing number of studies have investigated the link between racial discrimination and health, there are still areas where more research is required. In the 2015 racism meta-analysis of almost 300 studies, only 9% of the data included were prospective [ 16 ]. The authors aimed to compare the effect sizes of the cross-sectional and prospective studies included in their review but were unable to conduct this analysis for the physical outcomes data, emphasising the need for more prospective studies on physical health outcomes in particular.

Further, the literature is dominated by United States (US)-based studies drawn from convenience samples [ 12 , 16 ]. In the latest racism and health meta-analysis, over one third of the articles included were drawn from student samples and only nine (2.7%) of the included studies were UK-based [ 16 ]. This is important as the makeup of ethnic minority groups in the UK differs from that of the US, with those of South Asian backgrounds forming the largest minority group [ 25 ]. In addition, all of the UK studies were cross-sectional in nature and focused on mental health, with physical outcomes such as the number of physical illnesses [ 26 ] and self-rated health [ 27 ] included in only two of the studies.

To date, one UK study has assessed the relationship between racial discrimination and health prospectively. In an analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS), the authors found that those who reported racial discrimination had poorer mental functioning scores 4 years later [ 28 ]. They also reported a dose-response relationship between the experience of racial discrimination and mental health, with those who reported racial discrimination at more than one timepoint over a 3-year period experiencing a greater deterioration in mental functioning.

Overall, there is a dearth of prospective evidence on the link between racial discrimination and health in UK samples, particularly in relation to physical health outcomes.

To address these gaps in the literature, the present study set out to assess cross-sectional and prospective associations between racial discrimination and health in a large community-dwelling UK population cohort. Specifically, we were interested in psychological distress, mental functioning and life satisfaction, as indicators of mental health, as well as self-rated health and physical functioning as markers of physical health, along with limiting longstanding illness as an indicator of impairment. We hypothesised that those who perceived racial discrimination would have poorer health across all measures both cross-sectionally and prospectively.

Study population

The current study uses data from UKHLS [ 29 ]. The study began in 2009/10 (wave 1) with follow-ups yearly. This study uses data from waves 1 (2009/10) and 3 (2011/12) of the data collection. The UKHLS consists of a representative sample of the UK population, as well as an ethnic minority boost sample [ 25 , 30 ]. In this study we use data from ‘extra 5 minutes sample’ of over 8000 individuals who had an additional 5 min of questions on issues of importance to ethnicity research including discrimination. The majority of this sample are drawn from ethnic minority groups ( n  = 6722), in addition to a smaller comparison group of white participants ( n  = 1428) [ 25 ]. We restricted our analyses to those who provided information on racial discrimination at wave 1 ( n  = 5707) and self-reported being of non-white ethnicity ( n  = 4883). The participants included in our study were significantly older ( p  = 0.002) and were less likely to have an educational qualification ( p  < 0.001) than those who did not provide data for the study. They were also more likely to be male ( p  < 0.001) and of South Asian ethnicity ( p  < 0.001) The groups did not differ on income ( p  = 0.136). All participants provided fully informed written consent and the University of Essex Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for UKHLS.

Racial discrimination

To measure perceived discrimination, participants were asked whether in the past 12 months, they had (a) felt unsafe, (b) avoided going to or being in, (c) been insulted, called names, threatened or shouted at, or (d) been physically attacked in 7 different settings 1) At school/college/work, 2) On public transport, 3) At or around bus or train stations, 4) In a taxi, 5) Public buildings such as shopping centres or pubs, 6) Outside on the street, in parks or other public places, or 7) At home. If they answered yes to any one of these questions, a follow-up question asked them to choose an attribution for the discrimination from a list of categories including ethnicity, nationality, age, and sex among others. Participants could choose multiple settings and attributions for the perceived discrimination. Those who attributed any experience of discrimination to their ethnicity or nationality are treated as cases of perceived racial discrimination in our analyses. Those who did not perceive any form of discrimination serve as the comparison group in our analyses. Those who reported other (non-racial) forms of discrimination were not included in the analysis. This measure has been used in previous investigations to look at the link between perceived discrimination and health outcomes [ 28 , 31 , 32 ].

Mental health outcomes

We included 3 mental health measures at waves 1 (2009/10) and 3 (2011/12). Psychological distress was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 [ 33 ], in line with previous studies [ 31 , 32 ]. This tool has been validated as a screening tool to detect psychological distress in community samples [ 34 ]. This measure involved ratings of 12 statements including whether the participant had “ Been able to enjoy your normal day to day activities ” or whether they “ Felt constantly under strain ” with binary response options (yes/no). After totalling, the overall score ranged from 0 (least distressed) to 12 (most distressed). The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.99.

The 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12) mental component summary score was used to measure limitations caused by emotional, mental health and social functioning issues [ 35 ], in keeping with previous studies [ 31 , 32 ]. This tool has been validated for use as a measure of mental functioning in community samples [ 35 , 36 ]. Items included ratings of feelings experienced over the past 4 weeks such as “ Have you felt downhearted or blue ?” or “Accomplished less than you would like” . A total score ranging from 0 (low functioning) to 100 (high functioning) was derived using standard methods [ 37 ]. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.98.

One item was used to assess participants’ life satisfaction by asking them how satisfied they were with their “life overall”, on a scale from 1 (completely dissatisfied) to 7 (completely satisfied) [ 38 ]. Single item measures of life satisfaction are widely used in survey studies [ 39 ] This measure has been used in previous investigations to assess the link between discrimination and life satisfaction [ 31 , 32 ].

Impairment outcome

Self-reported limiting longstanding illness at waves 1 (2009/10) and 3 (2011/12) was used as measure of impairment. It was measured using one item “Do you have any long-standing physical or mental impairment, illness or disability?...mean [ing] anything that has … or is likely to trouble you over a period of at least 12 months” with response options of yes or no. Self-reported limiting longstanding illness has been investigated in relation to perceived discrimination in other studies [ 40 , 41 ].

Physical health outcomes

We included 2 measures of physical health that were assessed at waves 1 (2009/10) and 3 (2011/12). The SF-12 physical component summary score was used to measure limitations caused by deficits in physical functioning [ 35 ]. Participants were ask ed “Does your health now limit you a lot, limit you a little or not limit you at all?” in activities such “climbing stairs” or “moving a table, pushing a vacuum cleaner, bowling or playing golf”. Overall scores were derived using standard methods ranging from 0 (low functioning) to 100 (high functioning) [ 37 ]. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.98. This tool has been validated for use as a measure of physical functioning in community samples [ 35 , 36 ].

A single item was used to assess self-rated health: “ Would you say your health is … poor/fair/good/very good/excellent?” In keeping with earlier work [ 31 , 32 , 42 ] self-rated health was dichotomised with 0 being “good/very good/excellent” and 1 being “poor/fair”. This single item measure has been shown to have good predictive validity for health outcomes [ 42 ].

Our analyses included covariates that are likely relevant to racial discrimination and physical and mental health. All covariates were assessed at wave 1. Age in years was included as a continuous variable. Self-reported sex was included and coded as male/female. Socioeconomic status is an important contributor to racial disparities in health [ 43 ]. Racial discrimination can compound these inequalities. Therefore, we included education as a 3-level variable, coded as 1 “university degree”, 2 “high school qualification” and 3 “no qualification”. Equivalised monthly household income was computed by dividing total household net income by the modified Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) equivalence scale to account for the effects of household size and composition [ 44 ]. The UKHLS samples the 5 main ethnic minority groups in the UK [ 25 , 30 ]: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black African and Black Caribbean. Participants were asked “What is your ethnic group?” with response options standardised in line with the England and Wales 2011 Census [ 25 ]. Response options also accounted for those of “mixed backgrounds”. We included ethnicity as a 6-level variable with these 5 main UK minority groups and 1 additional category of non-white individuals from a range of other minority backgrounds including Chinese, Arab and mixed ethnic backgrounds among others. For our sensitivity analysis, we collapsed ethnicity into a 3-level variable with Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi participants coded as “South Asian” Black African and Black Caribbean participants coded as “Black” and other non-white participants coded as “Other”.

Statistical analyses

The characteristics of those who did and those who did not report racial discrimination at wave 1 were compared using Chi-squared tests for categorical variables and independent samples t-tests for continuous variables. Associations between racial discrimination and the mental and physical health measures were assessed using linear regression for continuous outcomes and binary logistic regression for categorical outcomes. For the mental health analyses, psychological distress, mental functioning and life satisfaction were the outcome variables. For the impairment analysis limiting longstanding illness was the outcome variable. For the physical health analyses, physical functioning and self-rated health were the outcome variables. Age, sex, household income, education and ethnicity at wave 1 were adjusted for in all analyses. Baseline (wave 1) score/status on the relevant outcome variable was included as an additional covariate in prospective analyses. Only those with complete case information at wave 1 ( n  = 4883) and wave 3 ( n  = 2833) were included in the analyses. We tested for interactions between racial discrimination and age, sex, income, education or ethnicity on the mental and physical health outcomes at both waves 1 and 3. No significant effects were detected. Thus, interaction terms were not included in our final reported models.

Results from linear regression analyses are presented as unstandardized B and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results from binary logistic regression analyses are presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI. The level of significance was set at p  < 0.05. Unstandardized Bs and ORs rather than p values should be used to determine the strength of associations. All analyses were conducted using SPSS v.24.

Sensitivity analyses

To test the robustness of our findings, we conducted three sets of sensitivity analyses. In our first, we investigated whether a certain type of discriminatory experience (i.e. feeling unsafe, avoiding somewhere, being insulted or attacked) contributing to the measure of racial discrimination was driving the results. We tested this by removing each type of discriminatory experience from the exposure variable in turn, as has been done in previous investigations [ 31 , 32 , 40 ]. In the second sensitivity analysis, we assessed whether participants who were lost to follow-up differed from those who provided data at both waves, and tested whether this influenced the findings by conducting the cross-sectional analyses (wave 1) including only those who provided follow-up data at wave 3. In our final sensitivity analysis, we assessed whether the associations between racial discrimination and our health outcomes varied depending on ethnic group (South Asian, Black or Other), as there is currently limited evidence in this area outside of the US context [ 16 ].

A total of 4883 participants were included in our analysis and of these 998 (20.4%) reported ethnicity ( n  = 854) or nationality ( n  = 144) discrimination. The characteristics of the sample at wave 1 in relation to racial discrimination are displayed in Table  1 . Those who perceived racial discrimination were younger on average and were more likely to hold a university degree than those who did not perceive racial discrimination. There were no differences in sex or income, but reports of racial discrimination did vary by ethnic group. Those in the Indian (23.3%) and in the Other ethnic group (24%) were most likely to report experiences of racial discrimination. Further detail on the types of racial discrimination and the settings in which the racial discrimination occurred for the different ethnic groups can be found in Supplementary Table  1 .

Racial discrimination and mental health

The descriptive characteristics of the sample in relation to health outcomes are displayed in Table  2 . The mental health findings from the regression analyses are displayed in the upper panel of Table  3 . Cross-sectionally, those who reported racial discrimination had greater psychological distress ( B  = 1.11, 95% CI 0.88; 1.34, p  < 0.001), poorer mental functioning ( B  = − 3.61; 95% CI -4.29; − 2.93, p  < 0.001) and lower life satisfaction ( B  = − 0.40, 95% CI -0.52; − 0.27, p  < 0.001), than those who did not report racial discrimination, independent of covariates.

In prospective analyses, those who perceived racial discrimination had greater psychological distress 2 years later than those who did not perceive racial discrimination, independent of covariates and baseline psychological distress ( B  = 0.52, 95% CI 0.20; 0.85, p  = 0.002). We detected an association between racial discrimination and poorer mental functioning ( B  = − 1.77; 95% CI -2.70; − 0.83, p  < 0.001), independent of covariates and mental functioning at wave 1. In adjusted analyses, those who reported racial discrimination had slightly lower life satisfaction than those who did not report racial discrimination at follow-up (means = 4.77 vs 4.91), but this difference did not reach statistical significance ( p  = 0.102).

Racial discrimination, impairment and physical health

The impairment and physical health results are displayed in the lower panel of Table 3 . The cross-sectional findings suggest that independent of covariates, participants who perceived racial discrimination were significantly more likely on average to report having a limiting longstanding illness (OR = 1.78; 95% CI 1.49; 2.13, p  < 0.001), and were more likely on average to rate their health as fair/poor (OR = 1.50; 95% CI 1.24; 1.82, p  < 0.001) than those who did not perceive racial discrimination. Those who reported racial discrimination also had significantly poorer physical functioning ( B  = − 0.86; 95% CI -1.50; − 0.27, p  = 0.008) than those who did not report racial discrimination in adjusted analyses.

In prospective analyses, those who reported racial discrimination were significantly more likely on average to have a limiting longstanding illness 2 years later than those who did not report racial discrimination, independent of covariates and limiting longstanding illness at baseline (OR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.01; 1.69, p  = 0.039). A greater proportion of those who reported racial discrimination rated their health as fair/poor on average at follow-up than those who did not report racial discrimination (OR = 1.30; 95% CI 1.00; 1.69, p  = 0.048) in adjusted analyses. However, we failed to detect a prospective adjusted association between racial discrimination and physical functioning ( p  = 0.290).

In the first sensitivity analysis, removing each of the discriminatory experiences from the measure of racial discrimination in turn did not alter any of the cross-sectional results (Table  4 , upper panel). Prospectively, the association between racial discrimination and all the mental health measures and limiting longstanding illness remained the same regardless of the type of discriminatory experience removed from the measure (Table 4 , lower panel). For self-rated health, the association was fairly robust to the type of discriminatory experience, but was slightly attenuated when “feeling unsafe” was removed from the racial discrimination variable ( p  = 0.133). Again, for the most part, no significant prospective associations were detected for physical functioning except when “feeling unsafe” was removed from the racial discrimination variable ( p  = 0.027).

In the second sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Table  2 ), cross-sectional physical and impairment (lower panel) and mental health (upper panel) findings for those who provided complete data at wave 3 were similar to the full-sample at wave 1.

In our final sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Table  3 ), we assessed whether the associations between racial discrimination and our health outcomes varied depending on ethnic group (South Asian, Black, Other). For the cross-sectional analyses, the findings for psychological distress and mental functioning did not vary by ethnic group. However, for life satisfaction ( B  = − 0.23; 95% CI -0.47; 0.02, p  = 0.069), limiting longstanding illness (OR = 1.34; 95% CI 0.93; 1.92, p  = 0.113), physical functioning ( B  = 0.42; 95% CI -0.84; 1.68, p  = 0.511), and self-rated health (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 0.67; 1.53, p  = 0.955) the findings for the Black group were non-significant, with lower point estimates than when the ethnic groups were combined in the main analysis. For the prospective analyses, there was no group difference for the impairment and physical health outcomes. However, the findings for psychological distress ( B  = 0.32; 95% CI -0.18; 0.82, p  = 0.207), and mental functioning ( B  = − 1.37; 95% CI -2.83; 0.09, p  = 0.065), were not significant for the South Asian group, with lower point estimates than in the combined model. Interestingly, for life satisfaction, those in the Other ethnic group had significantly lower life satisfaction at wave 3 ( B  = − 0.39; 95% CI -0.69;-0.08, p  = 0.013), with greater point estimates than in the combined model. This finding remained non-significant for the South Asian and Black groups.

In this large UK-based prospective sample of ethnic minority participants, we detected associations between racial discrimination and poorer health. Cross-sectionally, those who reported racial discrimination had a greater likelihood on average of limiting longstanding illness and poor self-rated health, than those who did not report racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was associated greater psychological distress, lower life satisfaction, and poorer physical and mental functioning. In prospective analyses, those who reported racial discrimination had a greater likelihood on average of limiting longstanding illness and poor self-rated health than those who did not report racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was associated with greater psychological distress and poorer mental functioning over a two-year follow-up period, regardless of baseline health. No significant prospective associations with physical functioning or life satisfaction were detected.

To our knowledge, this is the first prospective UK-based study to investigate both mental and physical health outcomes in relation to racial discrimination. One earlier analysis of the UKHLS found that those who reported racial discrimination had poorer mental functioning over a 1–4 year follow-up period [ 28 ]. The current study also found a prospective association between racial discrimination and poor mental functioning. Our study builds upon previous findings by additionally showing that this association is independent of baseline mental functioning. We also observed a prospective association with psychological distress, another marker of mental health, with those reporting racial discrimination experiencing an increase in psychological distress over time. We did not detect a prospective association between racial discrimination and poorer life satisfaction. Mean scores trended in this direction but the association did not reach statistical significance. A 2015 longitudinal analysis of the US-based Health and Retirement Study with over 6000 participants also failed to detect a prospective association between racial discrimination and decreases in life satisfaction [ 45 ], and pooled analyses have been unable to investigate prospective associations with life satisfaction due lack of sufficient evidence [ 12 , 16 ]. A possible explanation for this null finding, consistent with earlier work, is that racial discrimination is more strongly associated with negative mental health outcomes such as psychological distress than with positive outcomes such as life satisfaction [ 12 , 16 ]. Another potential reason for these findings relates to duration of follow-up, as review evidence suggests that a recent experience of racial discrimination may be more strongly associated with poor mental health and more weakly related to life satisfaction measures [ 16 ]. Our follow-up period of 2 years was relatively short which may have contributed to these results.

Reviews in the field [ 16 , 17 ] have highlighted the need for more prospective evidence, particularly for physical health outcomes [ 16 ]. We found that participants who reported racial discrimination were more likely to report having a limiting longstanding illness and poorer self-rated health, independent of baseline status. Meta-analytic evidence has demonstrated an association between racism and poor general health and worse physical health outcomes [ 16 ]. We built upon this predominately US-based data (a considerable portion of which used convenience sampling) to demonstrate prospective associations between racial discrimination and physical health outcomes in a representative sample of UK adults from ethnic minority groups. We failed to observe a prospective association between perceived racial discrimination and physical functioning, although participants who reported racial discrimination had slightly lower physical functioning scores prospectively than those who did not report racial discrimination. This lack of association may indicate that ongoing experiences of racial discrimination had already made an impact on physical functioning at the time of wave 1 survey, limiting the scope for further significant decreases in this measure over time, particularly as we took baseline physical functioning into account in our analyses. Another possibility, is that the etiological period involved for a decline in physical functioning may differ from that of mental functioning [ 14 ]. These outcomes were measured using the same tool (SF-12) but only mental functioning was significantly associated with racial discrimination over the follow-up period.

Review evidence based on US data suggests that associations between racial discrimination and health may vary depending on ethnic group [ 16 ]. In our sensitivity analysis, the cross-sectional results for life satisfaction and impairment and physical health outcomes were non-significant for the Black group. Prospectively the findings for psychological distress and mental functioning were non-significant for the South Asian group. Whereas, life satisfaction was found to significantly decline for the Other group over the follow-up period. Taken together these results suggest associations with health outcomes are strongest for South Asian and Other groups cross-sectionally, while prospectively racial discrimination appears to most consistently impact mental health outcomes in Black and Other ethnic groups. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the likelihood that some of our analyses were underpowered.

In our cross-sectional analyses, we found that those who perceived racial discrimination had poorer mental health, with greater psychological distress, poorer mental functioning and lower life satisfaction. Previous work in UKHLS has demonstrated a cross-sectional association with psychological distress using pooled data across three waves of data collection [ 46 ]. To our knowledge no prior UK-based work has reported on cross-sectional associations with poor mental functioning and low life satisfaction. These findings are consistent with earlier work in other countries [ 12 , 16 , 45 ].

We detected links between racial discrimination and poor physical health and impairment. Specifically, we found that those who reported racial discrimination had poorer self-rated health, poorer physical functioning scores and a greater likelihood of having a limiting longstanding illness than those who did not report racial discrimination. Earlier work using the 1993/1994 UK-based Fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities survey reported associations between perceived racial discrimination and poor self-rated health [ 27 , 47 ] and limiting longstanding illness [ 47 ]. Our more recent findings from 2009/2010 suggest that these deleterious associations remain an issue for minorities in the UK.

We detected stronger associations between racial discrimination and health for cross-sectional than for prospective comparisons, in keeping with earlier evidence [ 16 ]. However, cross-sectional work cannot determine whether reports of racial discrimination stimulate poor mental and physical health or whether perceptions of racial discrimination are a manifestation of feeling suboptimal mentally or physically. Our prospective findings therefore add to the field in establishing that racial discrimination predicts poor mental and physical outcomes prospectively, net of baseline associations, supporting the hypothesis that racial discrimination has adverse consequences for future health.

With regard to the pathways through which racial discrimination negatively impacts health, there are several possibilities that could help explain our results. One mechanism linking racial discrimination and health may be through the dysregulation of stress-related biological processes. In response to perceived chronic discrimination, stress processes may be frequently activated, which over time may result in disturbances across multiple biological systems, in line with the theory of allostatic load [ 20 ]. Review evidence indicates discrimination is associated with heightened cardiovascular responses to stress [ 11 , 21 ], though it is unclear whether this translates into an increased risk for clinical hypertension [ 48 ]. Another biological mechanism that may link discrimination and health is through activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Several reviews have linked racial discrimination [ 21 , 49 , 50 ] with changes in various cortisol parameters, which in turn have been linked with poorer mental and physical health [ 51 , 52 ]. Deleterious changes in other biological processes such as heightened inflammation [ 22 ] and alterations in DNA methylation of stress-related genes [ 53 ] have been linked with discrimination in recent studies. Alterations in these stress-related biological processes offer a plausible link to negative changes in physical [ 54 , 55 ] and, mental health outcomes [ 51 , 56 ]. Racial discrimination has also been associated with disturbances in neurobiological processes, with alterations observed in brain areas such as the anterior cingulate cortex, prefrontal cortex and amygdala which overlap with pathways associated with poor mental health [ 57 ].

Individual health risk (e.g. smoking, alcohol consumption etc.) could link perceived racial discrimination and poor mental and physical health, either as a method of coping with the negative psychological effect of perceiving racial discrimination (e.g. excessive alcohol consumption as a coping mechanism) or as a barrier to engaging in healthy behaviours (e.g. avoiding a health service perceived to be discriminatory). Racial discrimination has been associated with smoking [ 23 , 58 , 59 ], excessive alcohol consumption [ 23 , 60 ], as well as substance abuse [ 61 , 62 ]. Review evidence has linked discrimination with poor sleep [ 63 ] as well as weight gain in prospective studies [ 24 ]. This individual health risk offers a plausible indirect pathway linking racial discrimination with both poor mental [ 64 , 65 ], as well as physical health outcomes [ 66 ].

Another possibility at the broader structural level is that racial discrimination may impact health through differential access to societal resources such as education, employment, welfare and criminal justice [ 14 , 15 ]. In the UK, a 2016 report documented persistent ethnic disparities in educational attainment, employment, access to fair pay and adequate housing, as well the over-representation of ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system [ 4 ]. Further, data from this report highlight inequalities in access to healthcare among ethnic minority groups [ 4 ]. While meta-analytic evidence indicates that racial discrimination is associated with more negative patient experiences of health services, as well as delaying/not getting healthcare and lack of treatment uptake [ 19 ]. As these factors are social determinants of health in of themselves [ 13 , 14 , 15 ], they may act as a pathway through which perceptions of racial discrimination can act to negatively influence health.

The results of the current study need to be assessed in terms of strengths and limitations. There is a dearth of prospective evidence on the link between racial discrimination and health in UK samples, particularly in relation to physical health. Our large sample of ethnic minority participants allowed us to examine changes in mental and physical health over 2 years, and demonstrated both cross-sectional and prospective associations. We also adjusted statistically for factors that potentially confound associations, including age, sex, socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Although controlling for covariates does not tease out the complexity of the relationships between perceived racial discrimination and these sociodemographic characteristics [ 43 ]. For example, socioeconomic status contributes to racial inequalities in health [ 43 ], while racial discrimination can compound these disparities and can be conceptualised as an indicator of structural racism [ 13 ]; statistical adjusting for socioeconomic status does not capture these relationships.

The study of racism is a complex and contested area of research [ 67 , 68 ] and our study was not without limitations. Our measure of perceived discrimination was not specifically tailored for racial discrimination, as participants in the could attribute their experience to other forms of discrimination as well (e.g. sexism, ageism). There is evidence that the exposure instrument can influence associations between racism and physical and mental health outcomes [ 16 ] . Participants were able to attribute multiple reasons for their report of discrimination, which could have helped to avoid priming and this measure has been used to assess racial discrimination in previous work [ 28 ]. However, it is possible that measures such as the Schedule of Racist Events scale [ 69 ] and the Perceived Racism Scale [ 70 ] with more specific items on racist degradation and experiences of racism in personal and professional contexts could have garnered different results. Further, the self-report individual measure of racial discrimination employed in our study does not capture the structural conditions that shape the varied ways in which racial discrimination operates [ 14 ]. We only assessed perceived racial discrimination at baseline in this study and did not investigate whether racial discrimination experiences were persistent or changed over time.

Racial discrimination was assessed by self-reports of experiences in the past year and was therefore subject to recall bias. Our findings reflect the perception of racial discrimination rather than objective encounters with racial discrimination. It is possible that objective encounters with racism and perceiving one’s self as the target of racial discrimination might have different consequences for health. Experimental studies involving exposure to discriminatory scenarios have been used to investigate the health impact of objective exposures to racial discrimination. However, these studies may not represent a gold standard for the study of the relationship between discrimination and health, as meta-analytic evidence indicates that exposure to a single negative event in a laboratory setting does not negatively influence health [ 12 ].

In conclusion, this study adds to the field by demonstrating cross-sectional and prospective relationships between racial discrimination and both mental and physical health outcomes. With the rise in racial discrimination in the UK [ 6 ] in the aftermath of the Brexit vote [ 9 ] our findings highlight the need to reduce racial discrimination, not only to promote equity, but also to potentially benefit mental and physical health and reduce health inequalities.

Racial discrimination is a complex system that involves assigning ethnic groups differential value, which drives disparities in access to power, resources and opportunities [ 14 , 15 ]. Due to its multi-faceted nature, occurring at both the structural and individual level multiple interventions will be required to tackle this pervasive determinant of health. Historically, raising awareness of racial discrimination has been necessary to promote activism to bring about legislative and social change to improve the position of ethnic minority groups. In terms of public health, there are calls to integrate research about racial discrimination and health into medical teaching in an attempt to tackle structural racism and to highlight the impact racial discrimination has on health [ 71 , 72 ]. As well as strategies to reduce the pervasiveness of racial discrimination in institutional contexts, action through social media may have benefits for individual health too. The Black Lives Matter campaign is an example of a recent social media movement which has drawn attention to the issue of racial discrimination. There is some evidence that campaigns may provide a source of empowerment, particularly in a time where ethnic minority youth participation in traditional civic engagement activities are in decline [ 73 ]. Evidence suggests the Twitter conversation remained Black-led [ 73 ] and that the majority of the 40 million plus tweets were supportive of the movement [ 73 , 74 ]. However, whether social media campaigns positively [ 73 ] or negatively impact minority health [ 75 ] remains the subject of debate. Further, it should be acknowledged that interventions to educate and raise awareness do not tackle the structural macro-level forces that shape the position of ethnic minorities in society. Although, more challenging to address, work is required to identify socio-political processes that generate racial discrimination so attempts can be made to mitigate its effects. Research into the pathways underlying the link between racial discrimination and health are required to develop policy and to target interventions in this field.

Availability of data and materials

The UKHLS datasets analysed during the current study are freely available in the UK Data Service repository https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/

Abbreviations

Confidence Interval

General Health Questionnaire-12

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Short-form Health Survey-12

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom Household Longitudinal Study

United States

Alvarez-Galvez J, Salvador-Carulla L. Perceived discrimination and self-rated health in Europe: evidence from the European social survey (2010). PLoS One. 2013;8:e74252.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

The Race Relations Act. 1965. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/73/enacted .

The Equality Act. 2010. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents .

Equality and Human Rights Commission. Healing a Divided Britain: the need for a comprehensive race equality strategy. 2016.

Google Scholar  

European Union. Discrimination in the EU in 2015. 2015.

Kelley N, Khan O, Sharrock S. Racial prejudice in Britain today. London: NatCen Social Research and Runnymede Trust; 2017.

Home Office. Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18. Statistical Bulletin 20/18. 2018.

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Hate Crime in Scotland 2017–18. 2019. https://www.copfs.gov.uk/images/Documents/Statistics/Hate%20Crime%202017-18/Hate%20Crime%20in%20Scotland%202017-18.pdf .

Bhui K, Halvorsrud K, Nazroo J. Making a difference: ethnic inequality and severe mental illness. Br J Psychiatry. 2018;213:574–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Goto JB, Couto PFM, Bastos JL. Systematic review of epidemiological studies on interpersonal discrimination and mental health. Cad Saude Publica. 2013;29:445–59.

Pascoe EA, Smart RL. Perceived discrimination and health: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:531–54.

Schmitt MT, Branscombe NR, Postmes T, Garcia A. The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2014;140:921–48.

Williams DR, Mohammed SA. Discrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed research. J Behav Med. 2009;32:20–47.

Krieger N. Measures of racism, sexism, heterosexism, and gender Binarism for health equity research: from structural injustice to embodied harm—an Ecosocial analysis. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41:37–62.

Williams DR, Mohammed SA. Racism and health I: pathways and scientific evidence. Am Behav Sci. 2013;57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213487340 .

Paradies Y, Ben J, Denson N, Elias A, Priest N, Pieterse A, et al. Racism as a determinant of health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0138511.

Priest N, Paradies Y, Trenerry B, Truong M, Karlsen S, Kelly Y. A systematic review of studies examining the relationship between reported racism and health and wellbeing for children and young people. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2013;95:115–27.

Lee DL, Ahn S. The relation of racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization to discrimination-distress: a meta-analysis of black Americans. J Couns Psychol. 2013;60:1–14.

Ben J, Cormack D, Harris R, Paradies Y. Racism and health service utilisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0189900.

McEwen BS. Stress, adaptation, and disease. Allostasis and allostatic load. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;840:33–44.

Lockwood KG, Marsland AL, Matthews KA, Gianaros PJ. Perceived discrimination and cardiovascular health disparities: a multisystem review and health neuroscience perspective. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1428:170–207.

Kershaw KN, Lewis TT, Diez Roux AV, Jenny NS, Liu K, Penedo FJ, et al. Self-reported experiences of discrimination and inflammation among men and women: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Health Psychol Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2016;35:343–50.

Borrell LN, Kiefe CI, Diez-Roux AV, Williams DR, Gordon-Larsen P. Racial discrimination, racial/ethnic segregation, and health behaviors in the CARDIA study. Ethn Health. 2013;18:227–43.

de CO B, Bastos JL, González-Chica DA, Peres MA, Paradies YC. Interpersonal discrimination and markers of adiposity in longitudinal studies: a systematic review. Obes Rev Off J Int Assoc Study Obes. 2017;18:1040–9.

McFall S, Nandi A, Platt L. Understanding society: UK household longitudinal study: user guide to ethnicity and immigration research. 4th ed. Colchester: University of Essex; 2017.

Heim D, Hunter SC, Jones R. Perceived discrimination, identification, social capital, and well-being: relationships with physical health and psychological distress in a U.K. minority ethnic community sample. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2011;42:1145–64.

Bécares L, Nazroo J, Stafford M. The buffering effects of ethnic density on experienced racism and health. Health Place. 2009;15:700–8.

Wallace S, Nazroo J, Bécares L. Cumulative effect of racial discrimination on the mental health of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom. Am J Public Health. 2016;106:1294–300.

University of Essex. Institute for Social and Economic Research, NatCen Social Research, Kantar Public. Understanding Society: Waves 1–7, 2009–2016 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1–18, 1991–2009. 9th Edition. UK data service; 2017.

Knies G. Understanding society: The UK household longitudinal study, Waves 1–7 (User Guide). University of Essex. Colchester: Institute for Social and Economic Research; 2017.

Hackett RA, Steptoe A, Jackson SE. Sex discrimination and mental health in women: a prospective analysis. Health Psychol Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2019;38:1014–24.

Hackett RA, Steptoe A, Lang RP, Jackson SE. Disability discrimination and well-being in the United Kingdom: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035714.

Goldberg D, Williams P. A user’s guide to the general health questionnaire. Basingstoke: NFER-Nelson; 1988.

Romppel M, Braehler E, Roth M, Glaesmer H. What is the general health Questionnaire-12 assessing?: dimensionality and psychometric properties of the general health Questionnaire-12 in a large scale German population sample. Compr Psychiatry. 2013;54:406–13.

Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.

Cheak-Zamora NC, Wyrwich KW, McBride TD. Reliability and validity of the SF-12v2 in the medical expenditure panel survey. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:727–35.

Ware JE. How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey (with a supplement documenting version 1) edition: first. Lincoln, RI: Health Assessment Lab; 2002.

Lucas RE, Donnellan MB. Estimating the reliability of single-item life satisfaction measures: results from four National Panel Studies. Soc Indic Res. 2012;105:323–31.

Dolan P, Peasgood T, White M. Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. J Econ Psychiatry. 2008;29:94–122.

Jackson SE, Hackett RA, Steptoe A. Associations between age discrimination and health and wellbeing: cross-sectional and prospective analysis of the English longitudinal study of ageing. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4:e200–8.

Jackson SE, Hackett RA, Grabovac I, Smith L, Steptoe A. Perceived discrimination, health and wellbeing among middle-aged and older lesbian, gay and bisexual people: a prospective study. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0216497.

DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, He J, Muntner P. Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question. A meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:267–75.

Williams DR, Priest N, Anderson N. Understanding associations between race, socioeconomic status and health: patterns and prospects. Health Psychol Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2016;35:407–11.

OECD. What are equivalence scales? 2005.

Sutin AR, Stephan Y, Carretta H, Terracciano A. Perceived discrimination and physical, cognitive, and emotional health in older adulthood. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Off J Am Assoc Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015;23:171–9.

Nandi A, Luthra R, Benzeval M. Ethnic and racial harassment and mental health: Identifying sources of resilience (No. 2016–14). 2016. https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2016-14 .

Karlsen S, Nazroo JY. Agency and structure: the impact of ethnic identity and racism on the health of ethnic minority people. Sociol Health Illn. 2002;24:1–20.

Dolezsar CM, McGrath JJ, Herzig AJM, Miller SB. Perceived racial discrimination and hypertension: a comprehensive systematic review. Health Psychol Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2014;33:20–34.

Busse D, Yim IS, Campos B, Marshburn CK. Discrimination and the HPA axis: current evidence and future directions. J Behav Med. 2017;40:539–52.

Korous KM, Causadias JM, Casper DM. Racial discrimination and cortisol output: A meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2017;193:90–100.

Adam EK, Quinn ME, Tavernier R, McQuillan MT, Dahlke KA, Gilbert KE. Diurnal cortisol slopes and mental and physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017;83:25–41.

Hackett RA, Kivimäki M, Kumari M, Steptoe A. Diurnal cortisol patterns, future diabetes, and impaired glucose metabolism in the Whitehall II cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101:619–25.

Santos HP, Nephew BC, Bhattacharya A, Tan X, Smith L, Alyamani RAS, et al. Discrimination exposure and DNA methylation of stress-related genes in Latina mothers. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2018;98:131–8.

Wang X, Bao W, Liu J, OuYang Y-Y, Wang D, Rong S, et al. Inflammatory markers and risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:166–75.

Chida Y, Steptoe A. Greater cardiovascular responses to laboratory mental stress are associated with poor subsequent cardiovascular risk status a meta-analysis of prospective evidence. Hypertension. 2010;55:1026–32.

Slavich GM, Irwin MR. From stress to inflammation and major depressive disorder: a social signal transduction theory of depression. Psychol Bull. 2014;140:774–815.

Berger M, Sarnyai Z. “More than skin deep”: stress neurobiology and mental health consequences of racial discrimination. Stress Amst Neth. 2015;18:1–10.

Bennett GG, Wolin KY, Robinson EL, Fowler S, Edwards CL. Perceived racial/ethnic harassment and tobacco use among African American young adults. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:238–40.

Sims M, Diez-Roux AV, Gebreab SY, Brenner A, Dubbert P, Wyatt S, et al. Perceived discrimination is associated with health behaviours among African-Americans in the Jackson heart study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70:187–94.

Gilbert PA, Zemore SE. Discrimination and drinking: A systematic review of the evidence. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2016;161:178–94.

Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Cleveland MJ, Wills TA, Brody G. Perceived discrimination and substance use in African American parents and their children: a panel study. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;86:517–29.

Gibbons FX, Etcheverry PE, Stock ML, Gerrard M, Weng C-Y, Kiviniemi M, et al. Exploring the link between racial discrimination and substance use: what mediates? What buffers? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010;99:785–801.

Slopen N, Lewis TT, Williams DR. Discrimination and sleep: a systematic review. Sleep Med. 2016;18:88–95.

Brennan PL, SooHoo S, Lemke S, Schutte KK. Alcohol use predicts 10-year depressive symptom trajectories in the health and retirement study. J Aging Health. 2016;28:911–32.

Baglioni C, Battagliese G, Feige B, Spiegelhalder K, Nissen C, Voderholzer U, et al. Insomnia as a predictor of depression: a meta-analytic evaluation of longitudinal epidemiological studies. J Affect Disord. 2011;135:10–9.

Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, Dans T, Avezum A, Lanas F, et al. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet. 2004;364:937–52.

Boyd R, Lindo E, Weeks L, McLemore M. On Racism: A New Standard For Publishing On Racial Health Inequities. Health Affairs Blog. 2020. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200630.939347/full/ . Accessed 18 Aug 2020.

Kaplan JB, Bennett T. Use of race and ethnicity in biomedical publication. JAMA. 2003;289:2709–16.

Landrine H, Klonoff EA. The schedule of racist events: a measure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. J Black Psychol. 1996;22:144–68.

McNeilly MD, Anderson NB, Armstead CA, Clark R, Corbett M, Robinson EL, et al. The perceived racism scale: a multidimensional assessment of the experience of White racism among African Americans. Ethn Dis. 1996;6:154–66.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jee-Lyn García J, Sharif MZ. Black lives matter: a commentary on racism and public health. Am J Public Health. 2015;105:e27–30.

Williams DR, Cooper LA. Reducing racial inequities in health: using what we already know to take action. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040606 .

Freelon D, McIlwain CD, Clark M. Beyond the Hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the online struggle for offline justice. SSRN scholarly paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2016. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2747066 . Accessed 8 Aug 2019.

Ince J, Rojas F, Davis CA. The social media response to black lives matter: how twitter users interact with black lives matter through hashtag use. Ethn Racial Stud. 2017;40:1814–30.

Umaña-Taylor AJ, Tynes BM, Toomey RB, Williams DR, Mitchell KJ. Latino adolescents’ perceived discrimination in online and offline settings: an examination of cultural risk and protective factors. Dev Psychol. 2015;51:87–100.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council ( https://esrc.ukri.org/ ), grant number ES/R005990/1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health Psychology Section, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK

Ruth A. Hackett

Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK

Ruth A. Hackett, Andrew Steptoe & Sarah E. Jackson

Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK

Amy Ronaldson

Centre for Department of Psychiatry & Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Kamaldeep Bhui

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RAH conducted the statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. AR, KB and AS edited and reviewed the manuscript. SJ provided scientific overview, edited and reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth A. Hackett .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval for UKHLS was obtained from the University of Essex Ethics Committee. All participants provided fully informed written consent.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:.

Supplementary Table 1. Racial discrimination types and settings by ethnic group. Supplementary Table 2. Associations between racial discrimination and health outcomes (complete cases at wave 3). Supplementary Table 3. Cross-sectional and prospective associations between racial discrimination and health outcomes stratified by ethnic group

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hackett, R.A., Ronaldson, A., Bhui, K. et al. Racial discrimination and health: a prospective study of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom. BMC Public Health 20 , 1652 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09792-1

Download citation

Received : 18 May 2020

Accepted : 29 October 2020

Published : 18 November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09792-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Discrimination
• Mental health
• Physical health

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• For Journalists
• News Releases
• Latest Releases
• News Release

Racial discrimination in hiring remains a persistent problem

Despite new laws and changing attitudes, little has changed in 25 years

Media Information

• Release Date: January 31, 2023

Media Contacts

Max Witynski

• (847) 467-6105

Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

EVANSTON, Ill. --- Decades after hiring discrimination was made illegal in many Western countries, experts predicted it would gradually disappear. But according to a major new meta-analysis from Northwestern University, discrimination in hiring has remained a persistent problem.

In fact, with few exceptions, rates of hiring discrimination have changed little since the 1990s, according to a new paper published Jan. 31 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . Lincoln Quillian — a professor of sociology — and former student John J. Lee, a recent graduate of Northwestern’s doctoral program in sociology, co-authored the work.

Quillian and Lee analyzed 90 studies involving 174,000 total job applications from Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands and the United States to study trends in hiring discrimination among four racial-ethnic origin groups: African or Black, Middle Eastern or North African, Latin or Hispanic, and Asian. The oldest study in the analysis was a British study from 1969, and the most recent was a U.S. study from 2019. 

“The biggest takeaway was that on average, there has been no change in hiring discrimination when aggregating all six countries together,” Quillian said, despite laws passed in the European Union during the study period that aimed to reduce hiring discrimination. 

In four of the six countries and for three of the four racial-ethnic groups examined, discrimination roughly held stable. The researchers did find a few significant trends, however, that were both positive and negative.

France was the only country with a significant decline in discrimination, from very high levels in the 2000s to what are still high levels today, but in line with those of peer nations. There was a slight trend toward higher discrimination rates in all other countries except Canada, though the upward trend was only statistically significant in the Netherlands. 

“Several countries had a slight upward trend, so it was not unique to the Netherlands. It’s possible that more broadly, this increase is tied to things like the growth of right-wing politics and anti-immigrant sentiment,” Quillian said.

Among the racial-ethnic origin groups studied, most saw a constant rate of discrimination, except for Middle Eastern/North African job applicants. That group saw an uptick in hiring discrimination in the 2000s and 2010s as compared to the 1990s, which the researchers said may be attributable to rising bias against this group after terrorist attacks such as 9/11, which occurred during this period.

Other groups for which hiring trends were analyzed included African/Black, Asian and Latin American/Hispanic applicants. Relative to white applicants, applicants of color from all backgrounds in the study had to submit about 50% more applications per callback on average, Quillian said, with some variation between countries and groups. Callbacks are defined as employers expressing interest in interviewing candidates.

This means that if a white applicant must apply to 20 jobs on average to get a callback, an applicant of color would need to apply to 30. Further discrimination can occur later in the hiring process, but was not studied in this case, according to Quillian.

The 90 studies in the analysis were conducted in a similar manner, with minor differences. In most cases, researchers submitted fake application materials to real job openings, tweaking the materials slightly to include racial indicators along with otherwise similar credentials to ensure that differences in callback rates could be attributed to discrimination, rather than candidate qualifications.

Most studies analyzed (about 75%) were conducted since the 1990s, though trends extend back to the 1970s in France, Great Britain and the Netherlands.

Overall, Quillian said, it’s disappointing to see little progress despite anti-discrimination legislation, changing attitudes against open discrimination since the 1970s, and corporate and government policies that have sought to improve workforce diversity. 

According to the authors, further efforts are needed to have a real impact on hiring discrimination. Quillian believes that progress is possible if anti-discrimination policies are enforced, employers are held accountable, and mentorship programs support employees of color who are seeking promotion and advancement in particular fields. 

“Policies that require employers to keep track of and make publicly available the race or ethnicity of the people they're hiring make a lot of sense,” Quillian said. Such policies, he noted, can also encourage companies to take a second look at their own numbers. If their hiring patterns show a preference for white candidates, there is a risk of both bad publicity and discrimination lawsuits. 

Though there has been generational change over the last 50 years, with younger generations reporting less conservative racial attitudes than older ones, that change hasn’t been reflected in reduced hiring discrimination, Quillian said. 

“To make hiring discrimination a thing of the past, we need to be thoughtful and committed to enforcing the law and making changes in hiring practices to promote diversity,” he said.

Race, ethnicity, and discrimination at work: a new analysis of legal protections and gaps in all 193 UN countries

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

ISSN : 2040-7149

Article publication date: 1 February 2023

Issue publication date: 18 December 2023

While only one aspect of fulfilling equal rights, effectively addressing workplace discrimination is integral to creating economies, and countries, that allow for everyone's full and equal participation.

Design/methodology/approach

Labor, anti-discrimination, and other relevant pieces of legislation were identified through the International Labor Organization's NATLEX database, supplemented with legislation identified through country websites. For each country, two researchers independently coded legislation and answered questions about key policy features. Systematic quality checks and outlier verifications were conducted.

More than 1 in 5 countries do not explicitly prohibit racial discrimination in employment. 54 countries fail to prohibit unequal pay based on race. 107 countries prohibit racial and/or ethnic discrimination but do not explicitly require employers to take preventive measures against discrimination. The gaps are even larger with respect to multiple and intersectional discrimination. 112 countries fail to prohibit discrimination based on both migration status and race and/or ethnicity; 103 fail to do so for foreign national origin and race and/or ethnicity.

Practical implications

Both recent and decades-old international treaties and agreements require every country globally to uphold equal rights regardless of race. However, specific national legislation that operationalizes these commitments and prohibits discrimination in the workplace is essential to their impact. This research highlights progress and gaps that must be addressed.

Originality/value

This is the first study to measure legal protections against employment discrimination based on race and ethnicity in all 193 UN countries. This study also examines protection in all countries from discrimination on the basis of characteristics that have been used in a number of settings as a proxy for racial/ethnic discrimination and exclusion, including SES, migration status, and religion.

• Discrimination
• Migration status

Heymann, J. , Varvaro-Toney, S. , Raub, A. , Kabir, F. and Sprague, A. (2023), "Race, ethnicity, and discrimination at work: a new analysis of legal protections and gaps in all 193 UN countries", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion , Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 16-34. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2022-0027

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Jody Heymann, Sheleana Varvaro-Toney, Amy Raub, Firooz Kabir and Aleta Sprague

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

Work plays a fundamental role in shaping the conditions of people's lives. Earnings from employment are the predominant source of income for most people; income in turn shapes access to a wide range of necessities including housing, transportation, and food, as well as non-essentials that impact quality of life and access to opportunities. In many countries where health insurance is partial or incomplete, work shapes access to healthcare. And by affecting where families live and whether caregivers can take time off to meet the developmental needs of children, the availability and conditions of work can have profound impacts on child development and education. Likewise, as adults age, as well as at the end of life, work histories can and do shape retirement income in most countries, and working conditions influence the ability of adults to care for aging family members.

As a result, when discrimination impedes work opportunities or results in loss of income, the consequences affect not only the quality and equality of work lives, but also of many other spheres of life. Moreover, when certain groups of workers routinely face bias in the workplace, this discrimination widens other inequalities in the economy, with ripple effects that have impacts on health, housing, children's access to quality education, and equal rights more broadly.

Given these vast and intergenerational impacts, the extent and persistence of workplace discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity worldwide—which occurs at each stage of employment, including hiring, promotions, demotions, pay, working conditions, and terminations—represents a significant threat to both individual households and societies as a whole, as well as a clear violation of fundamental human rights. Moreover, studies in countries around the world have documented how employment discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity commonly intersects with discrimination based on migration status, socioeconomic status, gender, and other characteristics, compounding other forms of inequality. While only one aspect of fulfilling equal rights, effectively addressing workplace discrimination is integral to creating economies, and countries, that allow for everyone's full and equal participation.

In this article, we review the research evidence on employment discrimination based on race and on the impact of anti-discrimination legislation, and then present the methods and results of the first study of anti-discrimination protections in all 193 UN countries.

Discrimination in hiring

A wide range of studies have demonstrated racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring, including studies in which researchers submit fictitious CVs and applications that reflect similar credentials and experience, but that vary with respect to photos, names, and/or experiences suggestive of different racial or ethnic identities. These “correspondence studies,” which improved on prior methods of testing for racial discrimination by making candidates substantively identical except for markers of race/ethnicity ( Bertrand and Duflo, 2017 ), find that presumed race/ethnicity influences the likelihood that a particular candidate receives an invitation to interview, with those representing historically marginalized racial or ethnic groups consistently receiving fewer callbacks ( Baert, 2018 ).

Other research approaches include direct interviews with hiring managers and simulations in which study participants rate the strength of hypothetical job candidates based on their photos and descriptions of their experience and characteristics where, again, the principal aspect varied is race/ethnicity, either on its own or together with intersectional characteristics like migration status or gender.

These research approaches also document the persistence of discrimination in hiring across jobs and geographies. For example, research in Nigeria found that managers of both public and private organizations were more likely to hire applicants from their own ethnic group ( Adisa et al. , 2017 ). A study spanning five European countries—Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom—demonstrated discrimination in the hiring of Black and Middle Eastern men ( Di Stasio and Larsen, 2020 ).

Discrimination based on common proxies for race or ethnicity can likewise shape job prospects. In Canada, for example, migrants from sub-Saharan Africa report that their accents can be a barrier to becoming employed and having career mobility ( Creese, 2010 ), while in the US, numerous court cases have illustrated how Black women commonly face barriers to employment because their natural hairstyles are found to violate “neutral” grooming codes ( Greene, 2017 ).

Discrimination is also often intersectional. In Germany, a 2020 study found that women with Turkish names were less likely than those with German names to receive interview invitations, and this gap widened further for women wearing headscarves ( Weichselbaumer, 2020 ). Similarly, in a Mexico study, both marital status and skin color affected women's chance of receiving an interview ( Arceo-Gomez and Campos-Vasquez, 2014 ). In Belgium, women from minority ethnic groups were less likely to be considered for a “high-cognitive demanding job” than either native women or minority ethnic men ( Derous and Pepermans, 2019 ).

Discrimination in promotions

Studies have also documented racial and ethnic discrimination in promotions across professions, from police forces to law firms to universities ( Tomlinson, 2019 ; Zempi, 2020 ). From Finland to South Africa to the United Kingdom and the United States, workers from marginalized racial and ethnic groups report discrimination in promotion, consistent with the research evidence based on multilevel multivariate studies of discrimination, as well as based on implicit bias testing of supervisors ( Hatch et al. , 2016 ; Mayiya et al. , 2019 ; Stalker, 1994 ; Yu, 2020 ; Zempi, 2020 ). In Canada, research has documented that visible minorities have less upward mobility even after controlling for education, work experience, time with the employer, and other factors ( Javdani, 2020 ), including both supply- and demand-side factors ( Javdani and McGee, 2018 ; Yap, 2010 ; Yap and Konrad, 2009 ).

Aside from direct discrimination in promotions, employer practices that evaluate employee conduct differently or otherwise deny opportunities for professional advancement based on race or ethnicity can affect opportunities within the workplace. For example, a study that experimentally changed the race/ethnicity of an employee in a photo while asking study participants to evaluate their performance demonstrated that simple acts such as being late for work led to a significantly greater negative impact on the appraisal of hypothetical employees when the photo showed a Black or Latinx employee than when the photo showed a white employee ( Luksyte et al. , 2013 ). Visible minorities are also less likely to receive training opportunities that can influence upward mobility in the labor force ( Dostie and Javdani, 2020 ).

Discrimination in terminations

Both direct discrimination by employers and structural discrimination that cuts across economies can make workers from marginalized racial and ethnic groups more vulnerable to terminations. For example, studies have found that during economic downturns, immigrants and workers from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups face heightened risks of labor market discrimination and job loss ( Couch and Fairlie, 2010 ; Lessem and Nakajima, 2019 ). Moreover, the consequences of past discrimination and exclusion from economic opportunities mean that workers from underrepresented groups are less likely to have seniority within a given organization or company. As a result, in addition to direct racial/ethnic discrimination that may lead to higher rates of termination, “last hired, first fired” policies can result in indirect discrimination against workers from historically excluded groups.

Impacts of discrimination in hiring, job positions, and promotions on pay inequality

Discrimination in hiring can impact initial salaries and level and type of starting position. When individuals are hired into jobs below their skill level because of bias based on race and ethnicity, they earn less than they would have earned had there been no discrimination ( Coleman, 2003 ). Likewise, when discrimination results in the overrepresentation of workers from historically marginalized racial/ethnic groups in limited employment capacities, including temporary or seasonal jobs, gaps in both pay and benefits further widen. Survey research across 30 European countries showed that even after controlling for education, experience, occupation, and other categories, racial and ethnic minorities were more likely to end up in jobs where their skills were underutilized, leading to lower wages than if they were in a position more matched to their skills and offering reduced pathways for advancement ( Rafferty, 2020 ). In Chile, qualitative research has found that Peruvian migrants simultaneously experience limited employment trajectory due to their external migrant status alongside racialization by local Chileans who perceive them to be more fit for low-status and low-income positions due to assumptions about their physical and cultural traits ( Mora and Undurraga, 2013 ).

Direct pay discrimination

Even for the same job position, the “unexplained” wage differential after taking experience into account gives an indication of the amount of the wage differential that could be due to discrimination and bias. One-half to two-thirds of wage differences across racial and ethnic groups in some studies have been estimated to be due to bias ( Drydakis, 2012 ; Piazzalunga, 2015 ). While the data clearly demonstrates the existence of bias and discrimination in pay against specific groups in a range of countries, there has not been a comprehensive look across countries and racial/ethnic groups to document in detail when and where the wage gaps are greatest and lowest, before and after taking into account the impact of bias throughout the work lifecourse.

The documented and potential impacts of national laws addressing discrimination

Individual countries that have passed antidiscrimination laws have seen improvements including greater equality in hiring and lowering of wage disparities ( Leck et al. , 1995 ). While antidiscrimination laws alone do not eliminate discrimination in hiring, pay, promotions, or terminations, studies both across countries and across populations have demonstrated that antidiscrimination laws can make a difference. In Canada, for example, studies of the Employment Equity Act found that the share of visible minorities who were employed in the private sector increased to much closer to the percentage of the population following the law's adoption ( Agocs, 2002 ; Leck and Saunders, 1992 ). In the United States, studies have found that antidiscrimination laws contributed to wage and income increases for Black workers ( Collins, 2003 ; Donohue and Heckman, 1991 ) and a narrowing of the racial/ethnic pay gap ( Chay, 1998 ).

These findings on laws' impacts on employment outcomes by race parallel those observed for other groups of marginalized workers. For example, one study of 141 countries found that laws prohibiting gender discrimination in employment increased women's labor force participation in formal jobs ( del Mar Alonso-Almeida, 2014 ), while in the UK, legislation guaranteeing equal pay and non-discrimination in employment on the basis of sex resulted in a 19.4% increase in women's earnings and a 17% increase in women's employment rates relative to men's ( Zabalza and Zafiris, 1985 ). Moreover, explicitly prohibiting all forms of workplace discrimination matters to norms. In addition to their practical or applied value, laws prohibiting discrimination have important expressive value that can shape workplace expectations as well as societal views of equality more broadly, with the potential to affect rates of both explicit and implicit bias ( Sunstein, 1996 ). At the same time, the past several decades of antidiscrimination law have revealed important gaps to address. First, as many of the studies cited in the previous section illustrated, racial and ethnic discrimination commonly co-occurs with discrimination based on migration status, foreign national origin, social class, and other characteristics, highlighting the cumulative and often intersectional impacts of key facets of identity on work-related experiences around the world. Clearly banning all common grounds of discrimination, including those used as proxies for race or ethnicity or that commonly intersect with race or ethnicity, is a critical first step.

Second, prohibitions of indirect discrimination can offer important protection against racial/ethnic discrimination, including in instances where discrimination based on an unprotected ground has disparate impacts on the basis of race or ethnicity. This is true both for common grounds of discrimination that would ideally be explicitly covered by domestic labor laws (as they are by international treaties, e.g. national origin) ( Demetriou, 2016 ), as well as proxies for racial/ethnic discrimination that are not generally addressed on their own (e.g. accents and hairstyles) ( Justesen, 2016 ). In contrast, when discrimination laws take an overly formal approach to discrimination that only covers acts that were direct or intentional, they fail to account for the extensive evidence demonstrating that policies and practices that are racially neutral on their face may have disproportionate consequences for workers from historically marginalized groups.

Third and finally, while protections against employment discrimination are essential, more attention must be paid to implementation. While a range of actions are needed, evidence shows that having legal protections in place against retaliation may increase reporting rates by reassuring workers that their careers will be protected if they report discrimination ( Bergman et al. , 2002 ; Gorod, 2007 ; Keenan, 1990 ; Pillay et al. , 2018 ).

This is the first study to examine legislation in all 193 UN countries to map the extent to which each country in the world has protections against racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring, promotions, training, demotions, and terminations, as well as whether they proactively support implementation through clear legislative prohibitions of retaliation for reporting. Further, we examine to what extent countries not only address direct discrimination based on race/ethnicity, but also indirect racial/ethnic discrimination and/or direct discrimination based on grounds that can serve as proxies depending on the historical and societal context for racial discrimination, including religion, migration status, and socioeconomic status. Further, we highlight examples where countries explicitly address intersectionality. Finally, we examine whether there were gains over the past five years in the number of countries that are prohibiting each type of discrimination.

Methodology

Data source.

We constructed a database of prohibitions against discrimination in private sector labor in all 193 UN member states as of January 2021. Labor, anti-discrimination, and other relevant pieces of legislation were identified through the International Labor Organization's NATLEX database, supplemented with legislation identified through country websites. A coding framework was developed to systematically capture key policy features. This coding framework was reviewed by researchers, lawyers, and other leaders working on employment discrimination and tested on a subset of countries before database coding commenced.

For each country and protected characteristic studied, two researchers independently read legislation in its original language or a translation and used the coding framework to assess whether legislation specifically prohibited discrimination in each aspect of work or broadly, whether there were any exceptions to prohibitions of discrimination based on employer characteristics, and whether there were specific provisions in place to support effective implementation. In countries where anti-discrimination protections are legislated subnationally, the lowest level of protection across states or provinces was captured. Answers were then reconciled to minimize human error. When the two researchers could not arrive at an agreement based on the codebook framework, the full coding team met to discuss, and the coding framework was updated to reflect the decision. When updates were made, countries that had already been coded were checked for consistency with the update.

Once coding was complete, systematic quality checks were conducted of variables that proved challenging for researchers during the coding process. Randomized quality checks were conducted of variables that were more straightforward, checking first twenty countries to ensure no errors were identified and a larger subset of countries if there were errors. Finally, outlier verifications globally and by region or country income level were conducted for all variables. In order to assess whether legislative provisions have strengthened over time, similar methods were used to construct measures of laws in place as of August 2016.

Strength of prohibitions of discrimination

We examined legislation across six areas: hiring, pay, training, promotions and/or demotions, termination, and harassment. For each area, we assessed the strength of protection against racial and ethnic discrimination. We classified countries as having a “specific prohibition of racial or ethnic discrimination” if legislation either: 1) explicitly addressed racial and ethnic discrimination in that aspect of work (“racial discrimination in hiring is prohibited”); or 2) broadly prohibited racial discrimination at work (“there shall be no discrimination at work based on race”) and guaranteed equality in the specific area (“no one shall be discriminated against in hiring decisions”). For equal pay, we further distinguished between countries that guaranteed equal pay for equal work and those that had a stronger provision guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value which would prohibit differences in pay when there is occupational segregation.

Countries were classified as having a “broad prohibition of racial or ethnic discrimination” if legislation broadly prohibited discrimination based on race or ethnicity, but did not address specific aspects of work. Countries were coded as having a “general prohibition of discrimination” if legislation did not explicitly address race or ethnicity but banned discrimination in an aspect of work for all workers. “No explicit prohibition” denotes when legislation did not take any of the approaches above. We separately analyzed whether prohibitions of discrimination included indirect discrimination, which would protect against seemingly neutral practices or criteria that have disparate impacts across race and/or ethnicity.

Intersecting characteristics

In many countries racial and/or ethnic discrimination is deeply intertwined with other characteristics, including social class, migration status, foreign national origin, and religion. Accordingly, we assessed whether laws prohibit discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and these intersecting characteristics.

Employer responsibilities

We assessed whether legislation required employers to take measures to prevent racial or ethnic discrimination in the workplace. In doing so, we distinguished between legislation that made it a general responsibility and legislation that outlined specific steps for employers to take. These specific prevention steps included requirements to create a code of conduct to prevent racial discrimination, establish disciplinary procedures, raise awareness of anti-discrimination laws, or conduct trainings to prevent discrimination.

Prohibitions of retaliation

To capture the extent to which provisions effectively covered the range of forms that retaliation can take, we coded the protections for individuals who reported discrimination, filed a complaint, or initiated litigation (any adverse action, disciplinary action, or retaliatory dismissal only) and whether prohibitions of retaliation covered all workers participating in the investigation.

Firm-based exceptions

In some countries, prohibitions of discrimination are weakened by provisions that exempt certain employers. We captured exceptions that broadly applied to prohibitions of discrimination or specifically in different aspects of work based on firm type for small businesses, charities and non-profits, and religious organizations.

All analyses were conducted using Stata MP 14.2. Differences were assessed by region using the Pearson's chi-square statistics. Region was categorized according to the World Bank's country and lending groups as of 2020 [ 1 ].

Globally, 153 countries prohibited at least some form of racial and/or ethnic discrimination at work in 2021, a modest increase from 148 countries in 2016 ( Figure 1 ). Three of the countries introducing these new prohibitions were in Sub-Saharan Africa (Mali, South Sudan, and Zambia), one in Europe (Iceland), and one in the South Pacific (Tuvalu). An additional five countries expanded existing prohibitions of racial and/or ethnic discrimination either to broadly prohibit discrimination at work in addition to specific prohibitions in certain areas (Barbados and Honduras) or to comprehensively cover discrimination at work in all areas, as well as indirect racial and/or ethnic discrimination (Andorra, Burundi, and Sao Tome and Principe).

Gaps in prohibitions are found in every region of the world. Countries in the Americas were the most likely to prohibit at least some form of racial discrimination at work, followed closely by Europe and Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In each of these regions, only ten percent or fewer of countries lacked at least some form of prohibition. In contrast, a majority of countries lack prohibitions of racial discrimination in East Asia and Pacific and South Asia ( Figure 2 ). Differences were statistically significant between these two regions and the three regions with the highest levels of prohibitions ( p  < 0.01).

In 2016, 107 countries had a law that explicitly prohibited race-based discrimination in hiring. That number increased to 115 countries in 2021 (see Figure 2 ). An additional 27 countries in 2016 and 29 countries in 2021 had either a broad prohibition of race discrimination or a general prohibition of discrimination in hiring. Prohibitions of racial/ethnic discrimination in hiring were most common in Europe and Central Asia (91%) followed by sub-Saharan Africa (62%). In all other regions, fewer than half of countries prohibited racial discrimination in hiring ( Figure 3 ).

Training and promotions/demotions

Eighty countries in 2016 and 88 countries in 2021 prohibited discrimination based on race in training. Eighty-three countries in 2016 prohibited discrimination in promotions and demotions. In 2021, this number increased to 90 countries.

While less than three-quarters of countries prohibited racial discrimination in training in Europe and Central Asia (74%), these prohibitions were still more common than in every other region. Similar trends were found for promotions and/or demotions.

The number of countries guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value, increased from 34 in 2016 to 41 in 2021. Overall, including guarantees both of equal pay for work of equal value and equal pay for equal work, 91 countries in 2016 and 96 countries in 2021 guaranteed equal pay across racial and ethnic groups. More countries in Europe and Central Asia (77%) prohibited racial discrimination in pay than those in sub-Saharan Africa (56%), the Middle East and North Africa (27%), and South Asia (27%).

Terminations

In 2016, 106 countries prohibited racial discrimination in terminating employment. That number increased to 112 countries in 2021. Prohibitions of racial/ethnic discrimination in terminations were most common in Europe and Central Asia (74%), Sub-Saharan Africa (71%), and the Americas (60%). In contrast, less than a third of countries prohibited racial discrimination in terminations in East Asia and Pacific (30%) and South Asia (25%).

Only 66 countries explicitly prohibited workplace harassment based on race/ethnicity in 2016. By 2021, that number had increased to 72. Only a minority of countries prohibited racial and/or ethnic harassment in all regions except Europe and Central Asia.

Indirect discrimination

Sixty-three countries prohibited indirect discrimination based on race and/or ethnicity in 2016, increasing to 71 countries in 2021. Only a third of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, a fifth of those in East Asia and Pacific and the Americas, and an eighth of those in South Asia explicitly addressed indirect racial/ethnic discrimination. No countries in the Middle East and North Africa did so.

Intertwined, multiple and intersectional discrimination

Prohibitions of discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and religion were widespread: 151 countries prohibited at least some aspect of workplace discrimination based on both characteristics in 2021. However, only 117 countries prohibited at least some aspect of workplace discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and social class. Even fewer prohibited discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and foreign national origin (90 countries) or migration status (81 countries).

Countries in sub-Saharan Africa were most likely to prohibit discrimination based on race and social class, as well as discrimination based on race and foreign national origin. While prohibitions of racial discrimination and religion, social class, or foreign national origin were comparatively high in the Americas, prohibitions of discrimination based on migration status were markedly lower. While nearly two-thirds of countries in Europe and Central Asia addressed migration status alongside race, only half prohibited discrimination based on foreign national origin ( Figure 4 ).

Finally, a minority of countries explicitly addressed the concepts of intersectionality or multiple discrimination in their discrimination legislation. Kenya's National Gender and Equality Commission Act recognizes intersectionality in defining marginalized groups to be people “disadvantaged by discrimination on one or more of the grounds in Article 27(4) of the Constitution” which includes “race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth” ( 2012 ). Australia's Racial Discrimination Act prohibits “acts done for 2 or more reasons” where “one of the reasons is the race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin of a person” ( 1975 ). In Macedonia, the Law on Prevention of and Protection Against Discrimination defines multiple discrimination to be a severe form of discrimination ( 2010 ).

Only a smaller minority of countries (38) took the additional step of requiring employers to take one or more specific measures to prevent racial discrimination. An additional 8 countries had general language requiring employers to take preventative steps, without specifying what those steps would look like.

Protections in the event of discrimination

In the event that discrimination occurred and employees filed a report or initiated litigation, a modest majority of countries took the important step of prohibiting retaliation against the employee who filed the complaint. Seventy-eight countries prohibited employers from retaliating in any way, an additional 7 prohibited harassment or any disciplinary action, and 26 only prohibited dismissing the employee ( Table 1 ). A similar number of countries (76) protected employees who participated in investigations from being retaliated against.

Are any employers exempt?

When countries had laws in place prohibiting discrimination, they overwhelmingly applied to all employers. In rare cases small businesses were exempt, including in 5 countries in the case of hiring, 4 countries in the case of training and terminations, and 3 countries in the case of pay and promotions and demotions ( Table 2 ). Charities and nonprofits had similarly uncommon exemptions. The group that was most frequently exempted from these prohibitions of racial discrimination were religious organizations. Fourteen countries exempted religious organizations from bans on discriminations based on race in hiring, training, and terminations, 13 exempted religious organizations in terms of racial discrimination in promotions and demotions, and 9 in the case of pay.

Around the world there has been an explosion of demonstrations and attention to the critical issue of racial discrimination over the past two years, building on the many decades of activism urging action on racial injustices that came before. And while catalyzed by state violence, these recent demonstrations also clearly took aim at the deeply entrenched economic disparities across race that persist across countries, which were on full display as workers from marginalized racial and ethnic groups lost jobs in historic numbers two months into the pandemic.

In response, governments and companies worldwide pledged action. Ensuring that discrimination is clearly prohibited in every country is an essential first step both for changing norms and attitudes and for giving people who are discriminated against more tools to combat the discrimination. Modest progress has been made over the past five years in increasing guarantees of equality, regardless of race and ethnicity, around the world. Between 2016 and 2021, the number of countries legally prohibiting racial and ethnic discrimination in the workplace increased and the strength of provisions improved. Eight more countries prohibited discrimination in hiring and 6 more in terminations. Seven more countries guaranteed equal pay for work of equal value based on race. Moreover, 8 more countries prohibited indirect discrimination based on race and ethnicity.

Yet unconscionable gaps remain. More than 1 in 5 countries have no prohibition of workplace discrimination based on race. Moreover, more than 1 in 4 countries, 54 in total, have no prohibition against racial discrimination in pay. Furthermore, more than a dozen countries provide for exceptions to the prohibition of racial discrimination for religious organizations.

Many countries also fail to offer adequate legal protection against both direct racial discrimination and other forms of discrimination that often occur simultaneously, have disparate impacts on the basis of race, and/or serve as proxies for racial discrimination. For example, in many countries around the world, marginalized racial and ethnic groups are also disproportionately poor due to historic and ongoing economic exclusion. In settings where racial and ethnic discrimination is prohibited but social class-based discrimination remains allowed, class-based discrimination can be used to practically discriminate based on race and ethnicity, particularly if indirect discrimination is likewise unaddressed in the law. Yet 76 countries fail to prohibit discrimination based on both social class and race and/or ethnicity; 121 lack protections against indirect discrimination; and 58 countries lack either protection.

Similarly, while discrimination based both on race/ethnicity and migration status is pervasive, many countries lack comprehensive protections addressing these and related grounds. The evidence illustrating why stronger laws are needed is compelling. For example, a study on labor force participation in Western Europe found that migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia earned over 20% less income than Western European internal migrants. Compared to internal Western European migrants, external migrants from MENA and sub-Saharan Africa regions were also less likely to be employed and part of the labor force in Europe ( Kislev, 2017 ). National laws that formally and explicitly prohibit multiple forms of discrimination may help protect more individuals and reduce inequalities in employment opportunities. Yet, 112 countries fail to prohibit discrimination based on both migration status and race and/or ethnicity and 103 fail to do so for foreign national origin and race and/or ethnicity.

Finally, even when legal protections are in place, it is crucial that there are both prevention and enforcement mechanisms. 107 countries prohibited racial and ethnic discrimination but did not place any explicit requirements on employers to try to prevent discrimination. Only 38 countries required employers to take specific steps and only an additional 8 required employers generally to work towards prevention.

The critical need to accelerate progress

The significant overall gaps in protections, alongside the findings that the expansion over the past five years of laws prohibiting racial discrimination at work has been slow, underscores the need to accelerate the pace of change on legal reforms—as a matter of human rights, an important determinant of individual and household incomes, and a prerequisite for countries to reach their full potential. Ensuring equal opportunities in employment on the basis of race and ethnicity has vast implications for individuals, families, and their broader communities. A significant body of literature has documented how access to employment, job quality, and adequate income shape mental and physical health, overall life satisfaction, and the ability to meet material needs ( Calvo et al ., 2015 ; Murphy and Athansou, 1999 ). When work opportunities are unevenly distributed by race due to both individual and structural discrimination, these disparities drive broader inequalities.

Moreover, all countries have agreed to do so. The Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by all UN member states in 2015, commit governments to “empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status” and “[e]nsure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard” ( United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015 ). By adopting the SDGs, countries worldwide agreed to realize these commitments by 2030. To meet that timeline, accelerating the pace of change on fundamental anti-discrimination protections is essential.

This builds on a long history of international agreements guaranteeing equal rights regardless of race or ethnicity, including in the field of employment. Many of these have been in place for decades. Foremost among them is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1965 ), which has been ratified by 182 countries ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021c ), declares that States Parties have a duty to “prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of (…) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration” ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1965 ).

In fact, nearly every major global human rights agreement commits countries to treating all people equally regardless of race or ethnicity. These include, among others, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted as the first global agreement of the United Nations and considered binding on all countries ( United Nations General Assembly, 1948 ), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, a binding treaty ratified by 171 countries ( United Nations General Assembly, 1966 ; United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021b ), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by 173 countries ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1966 , 2021a ).

Finally, beyond its importance to individuals, families, and communities and deep intrinsic value as a matter of human rights, ending racial discrimination in the labor market has significant implications for economies and companies. For example, in the US alone, estimates from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco find that closing the racial gaps in employment-to-population ratios between 1990 and 2019 would have boosted 2019 GDP by over $150 billion ( Buckman et al. , 2021 ), while other research has forecast that closing the racial earnings gap by 2050 would boost GDP by 22% ( Turner, 2018 ). Likewise, a significant body of evidence demonstrates that greater racial and ethnic diversity within companies, including on boards, improves their financial performance and degree of innovation ( Erhardt et al. , 2003 ; Herring, 2009 ; Cheong and Sinnakkannu, 2014 ; Thomas et al. , 2016 ; Hunt et al. , 2018 ). For example, a study of 492 firms found a strong relationship between ethnic and linguistic diversity and total revenue, dividends, sales and productivity ( Churchill, 2019 ). Particularly as more companies work and hire trans-nationally, the extent to which laws in all countries prohibit racial and ethnic discrimination at work matters to overall performance.

Research limitations and the need for a broader research agenda on policies and outcomes

While this study provides an important first look at prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination at work in all the world's countries, it has important limitations. This study did not quantify laws related to intersectional discrimination, including, among others, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Yet as past scholarship and case law have shown, addressing each individual basis for discrimination still may not be enough to reach the unique forms of discrimination that arise when multiple grounds of discrimination intersect, particularly if workers are required to prove each of their discrimination claims discretely and sequentially. Explicit protections against intersectional discrimination, and judiciaries willing and trained to apply them, may be needed ( Crenshaw, 1989 ; Fredman, 2016 ).

Future research should also examine prohibitions of discrimination in working conditions, given the evidence of inequalities. For example, research has shown that non-Hispanic Black workers and foreign-born Hispanic workers are disproportionately hired into jobs with the higher injury risk and increased prevalence of work-related disability ( Seabury et al. , 2017 ). Another study on COVID-19 job exposures found that Latinx and Black frontline workers were overrepresented in lower status occupations associated with higher risk and less adequate COVID-19 protections, contributing to the higher prevalence of infection in these populations ( Goldman et al. , 2021 ).

Further, we need to measure laws that reduce bias in informal as well as formal mechanisms that play a large role in the recruitment, hiring, and promotion processes, as well as in determining working conditions. Evidence has shown social networks and informal relationships can not only impact recruitment, but also can contribute to inequities in salary negotiations and mentorship at the hiring stage ( Seidel et al. , 2000 ; Spafford et al. , 2006 ).

These expansions on the law and policy data presented here should be part of a broader research agenda on racial equity in the global labor market that examines not only which laws and policies are in place but what impacts they are having. As with other policy areas, developing longitudinal quantitative, globally comparative measures of anti-discrimination laws helps make it possible for researchers to rigorously analyze the relationship between policy change and outcomes, producing actionable evidence about “what works” across countries ( Raub et al. , 2022 ). However, even with the new policy data we have developed, improvements in outcomes data will be essential to measure the impact globally of advances and legal gaps. Globally comparative data on experiences of racial discrimination across countries which is essential for measuring the impact of legal change globally has been limited to date for several reasons including the wide range across countries of who suffers racial and ethnic discrimination and the variability of country willingness to collect data.

Addressing discrimination: a global responsibility

While the workplace is only one location where racial and ethnic discrimination occurs, it is a crucial one. Ensuring equal opportunity to be hired and equal treatment in pay, working conditions, and promotions together influences whether individuals can lead full work lives, contribute to household income, and not only meet basic needs but also invest in the future of their families and communities. Moreover, global agreements have committed countries around the world to combatting discrimination based on race and ethnicity, including in the specific context of employment.

For these international instruments to have full impact, however, specific country-level legislation that operationalizes their commitments and prohibits discrimination in the workplace is essential. To accelerate progress toward ending racial and ethnic discrimination in employment worldwide—a basic human right—we need to monitor the steps countries are taking to address and eliminate discrimination in all aspects of work, including hiring, promotion, pay, and terminations. While legal guarantees are not enough—and norm change, leadership, and social movements are likewise critical to successfully eliminating discrimination both at work and more broadly—clear stipulations that companies are not allowed to discriminate are essential, as are strong and regularly updated accountability mechanisms.

Do countries prohibit racial and/or ethnic discrimination in all aspects of work?

Number of countries prohibiting racial and/or ethnic discrimination at work by aspect of work and year

Percentage of countries prohibiting racial and/or ethnic discrimination at work by region and aspect of work

Number of countries prohibiting at least some discrimination at work based on race and/or ethnicity and intersecting characteristics by region

Countries with prohibitions of retaliation against those reporting discrimination

Countries with exceptions to prohibitions of racial and/or ethnic discrimination

The World Bank's (WB) regional classifications can be found here: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups . While Malta is classified as part of the Middle East and North Africa by the WB, it is also a member of the European Union (EU) and therefore more likely to have legislation reflecting the EU's principles and directives. Thus, we classified Malta as a part of Europe and Central Asia. All other countries retained their WB classifications.

Adisa , T.A. , Osabutey , E.L.C. , Gbadamosi , G. and Mordi , C. ( 2017 ), “ The challenges of employee resourcing: the perceptions of managers in Nigeria ”, The Career Development International , Vol.  22 No.  6 , pp.  703 - 723 .

Agocs , C. ( 2002 ), “ Canada's employment equity legislation and policy, 1987-2000: the gap between policy and practice ”, International Journal of Manpower , Vol.  23 No.  3 , pp.  256 - 276 .

Arceo-Gomez , E. and Campos-Vazquez , R. ( 2014 ), “ Race and marriage in the labor market: a discrimination correspondence study in a developing country ”, American Economic Review , Vol.  104 No.  5 , pp.  376 - 380 .

Baert , S. ( 2018 ), “ Hiring discrimination: an overview of (almost) all correspondence experiments since 2005 ”, Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance , pp.  63 - 77 .

Bergman , M.E. , Langhout , R.D. , Palmieri , P.A. , Cortina , L.M. and Fitzgerald , L.F. ( 2002 ), “ The (un)reasonableness of reporting: antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol.  87 No.  2 , pp.  230 - 242 .

Bertrand , M. and Duflo , E. ( 2017 ), “ Field experiments on discrimination ”, in Banerjee , A.V. and Duflo , E. (Eds), Handbook of Economic Field Experiments , Elsevier , Amsterdam , Vol.  1 , pp.  309 - 393 .

Buckman , S.R. , Choi , L.Y. , Daly , M.C. and Seitelman , L.M. ( 2021 ), The Economic Gains from Equity , Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper , San Francisco .

Calvo , E. , Mair , C. and Sarkisian , N. ( 2015 ), “ Individual troubles, shared troubles: the multiplicative effect of individual and country-level unemployment on life satisfaction in 95 Nations (1981-2009) ”, Social Forces , Vol.  93 No.  4 , pp.  1625 - 1653 .

Chay , K.Y. ( 1998 ), “ The impact of federal civil rights policy on black economic progress: evidence from the equal employment opportunity act of 1972 ”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review , Vol.  51 No.  4 , pp.  608 - 632 .

Cheong , C.W.H. and Sinnakkannu , J. ( 2014 ), “ Ethnic diversity and firm financial performance: evidence from Malaysia ”, Journal of Asia-Pacific Business , Vol.  15 No.  1 , pp. 73 - 100 , doi: 10.1080/10599231.2014.872973 .

Churchill , S.A. ( 2019 ), “ Firm financial performance in sub-Saharan Africa: the role of ethnic diversity ”, Empirical Economics , Vol.  57 No.  3 , pp.  1 - 14 .

Coleman , M.G. ( 2003 ), “ Job skill and Black male wage discrimination ”, Social Science Quarterly , Vol.  84 , pp.  892 - 906 .

Collins , W.J. ( 2003 ), “ The labor market impact of state-level anti-discrimination laws, 1940-1960 ”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review , Vol.  56 No.  2 , pp.  244 - 272 .

Couch , K.A. and Fairlie , R. ( 2010 ), “ Last hired, first fired? Black-white unemployment and the business cycle ”, Demography , Vol.  47 No.  1 , pp.  227 - 247 .

Creese , G. ( 2010 ), “ Erasing English language competency: African migrants in Vancouver, Canada ”, International Migration and Integration , Vol.  11 No.  3 , pp.  295 - 313 , doi: 10.1007/s12134-010-0139-3 .

Crenshaw , K. ( 1989 ), “ Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics ”, The University of Chicago Legal Forum , p. 139 .

del Mar Alonso-Almeida , M. ( 2014 ), “ Women (and mothers) in the workforce: worldwide factors ”, Women's Studies International Forum , Vol.  44 , pp.  164 - 171 .

Demetriou , C. ( 2016 ), “ The equality body finds that restrictions in access to self-employment for third country nationals amount to unlawful discrimination, Cyprus ”, European Commission , available at: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/3840-cyprus-the-equality-body-finds-that-restrictions-in-access-to-self-employment-for-third-country-nationals-amount-to-unlawful-discrimination-pdf-95-kb ( accessed 7 January 2022 ).

Derous , E. and Pepermans , R. ( 2019 ), “ Gender discrimination in hiring: intersectional effects with ethnicity and cognitive job demands ”, Archives of Scientific Psychology , Vol.  7 No.  1 , pp.  40 - 49 .

Di Stasio , V. and Larsen , E.N. ( 2020 ), “ The racialized and gendered workplace: applying an intersectional lens to a field experiment on hiring discrimination in five european labor markets ”, Social Psychology Quarterly , Vol.  83 No.  3 , pp.  229 - 250 .

Donohue , J.J. and Heckman , J. ( 1991 ), “ Continuous versus episodic change: the impact of civil rights policy on the economic status of blacks ”, Journal of Economic Literature , Vol.  29 No.  4 , p. 1603 .

Dostie , B. and Javdani , M. ( 2020 ), “ Immigrants and workplace training: evidence from Canadian linked employer–employee data ”, Industrial Relations , Vol.  59 No.  2 , pp.  275 - 315 .

Drydakis , N. ( 2012 ), “ Roma women in Athenian firms: do they face wage bias? ”, Ethnic and Racial Studies , Vol.  35 No.  12 , pp.  2054 - 2074 .

Erhardt , N.L. , Werbel , J.D. and Shrader , C.B. ( 2003 ), “ Board of director diversity and firm financial performance ”, Corporate Governance , Vol.  11 No.  2 , pp. 102 - 111 , doi: 10.1111/1467-8683.00011 .

Fredman , S. ( 2016 ), “ Intersectional discrimination in EU gender equality and non-discrimination law ”, European Commission .

Goldman , N. , Pebley , A.R. , Lee , K. , Andrasfay , T. and Pratt , B. ( 2021 ), “ Racial and ethnic differentials in COVID-19-related job exposures by occupational standing in the US ”, PLoS One , Vol.  16 No.  9 .

Gorod , B.J. ( 2007 ), “ Rejecting reasonableness: a new look at title VII's anti-retaliation provision ”, American University Law Review , Vol.  56 No.  6 , pp.  1469 - 1524 .

Greene , D.W. ( 2017 ), “ Splitting hairs: the Eleventh Circuit’s take on workplace bans against Black women’s natural hair in EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions ”, University of Miami Law Review , Vol.  71 , p. 987 .

Hatch , S.L. , Gazard , B. , Williams , D.R. , Frissa , S. , Goodwin , L. , SelcoH , S.T. and Hotopf , M. ( 2016 ), “ Discrimination and common mental disorder among migrant and ethnic groups: findings from a South East London Community sample ”, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , Vol.  51 No.  5 , pp.  689 - 701 .

Herring , C. ( 2009 ), “ Does diversity pay?: race, gender, and the business case for diversity ”, American Sociological Review , Vol.  74 No.  2 , pp. 208 - 224 , doi: 10.1177/000312240907400203 .

Hunt , V. , Prince , S. , Dixon-Fyle , S. and Yee , L. ( 2018 ), Delivering Through Diversity , McKinsey & Company , Los Angeles .

Javdani , M. ( 2020 ), “ Visible minorities and job mobility: evidence from a workplace panel survey ”, The Journal of Economic Inequality , Vol.  18 , pp. 491 - 524 .

Javdani , M. and McGee , A. ( 2018 ), “ Labor market mobility and the early-career outcomes of immigrant men ”, IZA Journal of Development and Migration , Vol.  8 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 28 .

Justesen , P. ( 2016 ), “ Board of Equal Treatment ruling on so-called ‘language barrier’, Denmark ”, European Commission , available at: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/3920-denmark-board-of-equal-treatment-ruling-on-so-called-language-barrier-pdf-131-kb ( accessed 7 January 2022 ).

Keenan , J.P. ( 1990 ), “ Upper-level managers and whistleblowing: determinants of perceptions of company encouragement and information about where to blow the whistle ”, Journal of Business and Psychology , Vol.  5 No.  2 , pp.  223 - 235 .

Kislev , E. ( 2017 ), “ Deciphering the ‘ethnic penalty’ of immigrants in Western Europe: a cross-classified multilevel analysis ”, Social Indicators Research , Vol.  134 No.  2 , pp.  725 - 745 , doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1451-x .

Law on Prevention of and Protection Against Discrimination ( 2010 ), “ Skopje: constitutional court of the republic of Macedonia ”, No.  82 , available at: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5aa12ad47.pdf .

Leck , J.D. and Saunders , D.M. ( 1992 ), “ Canada's employment equity act: effects on employee selection ”, Population Research and Policy Review , Vol.  11 No.  1 , p. 21 .

Leck , J.D. , St. Onge, S. and Lalancette , I. ( 1995 ), “ Wage gap changes among organizations subject to the employment equity act ”, Canadian Public Policy , Vol.  21 No.  4 , pp.  387 - 400 .

Lessem , R. and Nakajima , K. ( 2019 ), “ Immigrant wages and recessions: evidence from undocumented Mexicans ”, European Economic Review , Vol.  114 , pp.  92 - 115 .

Luksyte , A. , Waite , E. , Avery , D.R. and Roy , R. ( 2013 ), “ Held to a different standard: racial differences in the impact of lateness on advancement opportunity ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol.  86 No.  2 , pp.  142 - 165 .

Mayiya , S. , Schachtebeck , C. and Diniso , C. ( 2019 ), “ Barriers to career progression of Black African middle managers: the South African perspective ”, Acta Universitatis Danubius Oeconomica , Vol.  15 No.  2 .

Mora , C. and Undurraga , E.A. ( 2013 ), “ Racialisation of immigrants at work: labour mobility and segmentation of Peruvian migrants in Chile ”, Bulletin of Latin American Research , Vol.  32 No.  3 , pp.  294 - 310 , doi: 10.1111/blar.12002 .

Murphy , G.C. and Athanasou , J.A. ( 1999 ), “ The effect of unemployment on mental health ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol.  72 No.  1 , pp.  83 - 99 .

National Gender and Equality Commission Act ( 2012 ), “ Ch. 5C, Nairobi: national council for law reporting with the authority of the attorney-general ”, available at: www.kenyalaw.org .

Piazzalunga , D. ( 2015 ), “ Is there a double-negative effect? Gender and ethnic wage differentials in Italy ”, Labour , Vol.  29 No.  3 , pp.  243 - 269 .

Pillay , S. , Ramphul , N. , Dorasamy , N. and Meyer , D. ( 2018 ), “ Predictors of whistle-blowing intentions: an analysis of multi-level variables ”, Administration and Society , Vol.  50 No.  2 , pp.  186 - 216 .

Racial Discrimination Act ( 1975 ), “ Barton: attorney General's department, Australian government ”, available at: https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/australias-anti-discrimination-law .

Rafferty , A. ( 2020 ), “ Skill underutilization and under-skilling in Europe: the role of workplace discrimination ”, Work, Employment and Society , Vol.  34 No.  2 , pp.  317 - 335 .

Raub , A. , Sprague , A. , Waisath , W. , Nandi , A. , Atabay , E. , Vincent , I. , Moreno , G. , Earle , A. , Perry , N. and Heymann , J. ( 2022 ), “ Utilizing a comparative policy resource from the WORLD policy analysis center covering constitutional rights, laws, and policies across 193 countries for outcome analysis, monitoring, and accountability ”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice , Vol.  24 No.  4 , pp. 313 - 328 , doi: 10.1080/13876988.2021.1894073 .

Seabury , S.A. , Terp , S. and Boden , L.I. ( 2017 ), “ Racial and ethnic differences in the frequency of workplace injuries and prevalence of work-related disability ”, Health Affairs , Vol.  36 No.  2 , pp.  266 - 273 .

Seidel , M.-D.L. , Polzer , J.T. and Stewart , K.J. ( 2000 ), “ Friends in high places: the effects of social networks on discrimination in salary negotiations ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol.  45 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 24 .

Spafford , M.M. , Nygaard , V.L. , Gregor , F. and Boyd , M.A. ( 2006 ), “ ‘Navigating the different spaces’”: experiences of inclusion and isolation among racially minoritized faculty in Canada ”, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education , Vol.  36 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 27 .

Stalker , P. ( 1994 ), The Work of Strangers: A Survey of International Labour Migration , International Labour Office , Geneva .

Sunstein , C. ( 1996 ), “ On the expressive function of law ”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review , Vol.  144 No.  5 , pp.  2021 - 2053 .

Thomas , A. , Dougherty , J. , Strand , S. , Nayar , A. and Janani , M. ( 2016 ), Decoding Diversity: The Financial and Economic Returns to Diversity in Tech , Intel Corporation and Dalberg Global Development Advisors , New York .

Tomlinson , J. , Valizade , D. , Muzio , D. , Charlwood , A. and Aulakh , S. ( 2019 ), “ Privileges and penalties in the legal profession: an intersectional analysis of career progression ”, The British Journal of Sociology , Vol.  6 No.  70 , pp.  1043 - 1066 .

Turner , A. ( 2018 ), The Business Case for Racial Equity: A Strategy for Growth , W.K. Kellogg Foundation and Altarum , Battle Creek, MI .

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs ( 2015 ), “ Reduce inequality within and among countries, goal 10 ”, available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal10 (accessed 17 September 2021) .

United Nations General Assembly ( 1948 ), “ Universal declaration of human rights, resolution 217 A (III) ”, available at: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ ( accessed 15 July 2021 ).

United Nations General Assembly ( 1966 ), “ International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights ”, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx ( accessed 16 July 2021 ).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 1965 ), “ International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination ”, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cerd.aspx ( accessed 16 July 2021 ).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 1966 ), “ International convention on civil and political rights ”, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx ( accessed 16 July 2021 ).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 2021a ), “ Status of ratification interactive dashboard - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ”, available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-4&src=IND (accessed 16 July 2021) .

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 2021b ), “ Status of ratification interactive dashboard - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ”, available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4 (accessed 15 July 2021) .

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 2021c ), “ Status of ratification interactive dashboard - International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ”, available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&clang=_en (accessed 16 July 2021) .

Weichselbaumer , D. ( 2020 ), “ Multiple discrimination against female immigrants wearing headscarves ”, ILR Review , Vol.  73 No.  3 , pp.  600 - 627 .

Yap , M. ( 2010 ), “ The intersection of gender and race: effects on the incidence of promotions ”, Canadian Journal of Career Development , Vol.  9 No.  2 , pp. 22 - 32 .

Yap , M. and Konrad , A.M. ( 2009 ), “ Gender and racial differentials in promotions: is there a sticky floor, a mid-level bottleneck, or a glass ceiling? ”, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations , Vol.  64 No.  4 , pp.  593 - 619 .

Yu , H. ( 2020 ), “ Multiracial feminism: an intersectional approach to examining female officers’ occupational barriers in federal law enforcement ”, Women and Criminal Justice , Vol.  31 No.  5 , pp. 327 - 341 , doi: 10.1080/08974454.2020.1734146 .

Zabalza , Z. and Zafiris , T. ( 1985 ), “ The effect of Britain's anti-discriminatory legislation on relative pay and employment ”, The Economic Journal , Vol.  95 No.  379 , pp.  679 - 699 .

Zempi , I. ( 2020 ), “ ‘Looking back, I wouldn't join up again’: the lived experiences of police officers as victims of bias and prejudice perpetrated by fellow staff within an English police force ”, Police Practice and Research: An International Journal , Vol.  2 No.  21 , pp.  33 - 48 .

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Starbucks discrimination lawsuit awarded white employee $25 million: Legal experts weigh in

Shannon Phillips received $25.6 million in damages after a six-day trial.

A federal jury this week found that Starbucks discriminated against a white manager who was fired amid an uproar over the company's treatment of Black customers at a store in Philadelphia five years ago.

The ex-manager, Shannon Phillips, received $25.6 million in damages after a six-day trial, Phillips' attorneys previously told ABC News.

The resolution of a lawsuit against one of the nation's largest employers drew attention to the standard for proving discrimination as well as the federal protection against bias afforded to all racial groups, regardless of whether they've faced historical marginalization, experts told ABC News.

The jury appears to have been persuaded in part by the argument that Phillips was fired as part of a public relations effort undertaken by Starbucks in response to racial justice backlash, which may carry implications for how corporations act in such circumstances, experts added.

Starbucks did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment. In court documents , the company rejected allegations of discrimination, saying that it disciplined Phillips for "legitimate, nondiscriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons."

MORE: Starbucks ordered to pay over $25 million to white former manager who claimed racial discrimination

Here's what to know about the Starbucks discrimination case and its implications, according to legal experts:

Why did the jury find that race played a role in the firing of the Starbucks employee?

In 2018, two Black men -- Donte Robinson and Rashon Nelson -- were arrested at a Philadelphia-area Starbucks store after an employee called 911 and accused them of trespassing because they had not made a purchase.

The two men later reached a private settlement with Starbucks and the City of Philadelphia, which agreed to pay each of the men $1 and establish a $200,000 fund for young entrepreneurs.

Phillips, a then-regional director who had worked at the company for nearly 13 years, was terminated less than a month after the incident.

In an initial lawsuit filed by Phillips in 2019, she said she was not at the store that day nor involved in the lead-up to the arrests, alleging instead that her race played a "determinative role" in her termination.

A key piece of evidence in the case centered on testimony from a Black district manager who said he thought race had played a role in Starbucks' decision to fire Phillips and allow him to remain with the company, Phillips' attorney previously told ABC News.

MORE: Target faces criticism from artists involved with Pride month products over response to boycott: ‘Quick to fold’

Legal experts concurred with that assessment, saying that the plaintiff's ability to point to disparate treatment of a relevant employee was critical to the jury's finding of discrimination.

"My understanding is that in these cases what you have to have is a comparative," Rick Rossein, a professor of employee discrimination law at the City University of New York Law School, told ABC News. "Here you have a Starbucks manager giving that type of testimony."

In court documents, Starbucks contested this account of its actions, saying instead that it disciplined Phillips based on poor performance. Phillips "appeared overwhelmed, frozen and lacked awareness of how critical the situation was for Starbucks and its partners," the company claimed .

Phillips appeared to further persuade the jury with her explanation for the alleged mistreatment, describing her firing as part of the company's effort to minimize the public relations fallout from the arrests, the experts added.

"Evidence points to Starbucks taking action against an employee in order to address public opinion as opposed to really addressing the question of who was involved in making that decision," Risa Lieberwitz, a professor of labor and employment law at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, told ABC News.

Is it unusual for workplace discrimination cases to be brought on behalf of white people?

Phillips’ case is unusual because the majority of cases alleging a violation of federal discrimination law on the basis of race involve non-white people, legal experts told ABC News.

Legal precedent that reaches as high as the Supreme Court affirms that the measure at issue, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, protects white workers who experience discrimination, they added.

"Anti-discrimination law that deals with race discrimination applies to any allegation of race discrimination whether it would be against a white employee, a Black employee or another racial group," Lieberwitz said.

While discrimination lawsuits on behalf of white individuals are uncommon, white plaintiffs have proven more likely to succeed than non-white ones when federal judges adjudicate their racial discrimination claims, said Wendy Greene, a professor of anti-discrimination law at Drexel University Law School and the director of the Center for Law, Policy and Social Action.

MORE: 'Thrown in their faces': Bud Light salespeople say boycott is hurting commission

"The surprise for many people, however, is that federal civil rights laws initially designed to address the longstanding, systemic racial segregation, exclusion and discrimination endured by individuals identifying as non-white are seemingly more effective at redressing racial discrimination against individuals who identify as white," Greene told ABC News.

What are the implications of the finding that Starbucks discriminated in this case?

The decision in this case could heighten scrutiny of large companies in their treatment of workers who belong to groups protected against discrimination as well as complicate efforts to discipline workers charged with improving a company's performance on racial justice issues, experts said.

"We're in the era where people are looking very carefully at decision-making by major corporations," Rosstein said.

Greene, meanwhile, said that the decision could make it more difficult for companies to supervise workers involved in the implementation of racial justice initiatives, since companies could be accused of racial discrimination if they discipline such employees.

MORE: With anti-drag laws on the rise, drag queens reclaim the art as form of protest

Management must balance the need to create a work environment free of racial discrimination with a simultaneous commitment to "ensure workplaces are free of racial exclusion and subordination, which are often couched as acts of racial discrimination against white employees in favor of non-white people," Greene said.

The large award for damages in the Starbucks case could "discourage employers from disciplining or terminating employees they believe are not effectively handling complaints of discrimination," she added.

Related Topics

Popular reads.

4 dead in shooting at Georgia high school

• Sep 4, 10:47 PM

You might not want to rush to get new COVID shot

• Aug 26, 11:25 AM

5-year-old boy attacked by mountain lion

• Sep 3, 12:02 PM

ABC News releases Trump-Harris debate rules

• Sep 4, 6:33 PM

Trump charged in Jan. 6 superseding indictment

• Aug 27, 6:25 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

Racial harassment in the workplace: five key cases

Ex-England and Spurs footballer Paul Gascoigne has pleaded guilty to racially-aggravated abuse over a “joke” he made to a black security guard who was working at his show billed as “an evening with Gazza”. The court fined Gascoigne and ordered him to pay £1,000 in compensation to the guard. Fiona Cuming rounds up five employment law cases involving racism in the workplace.

What is racial harassment?

Behaviour could potentially amount to racial harassment if it is unwanted conduct of a racial nature that is offensive or degrading to the recipient.

It is up to the recipient of the alleged harassment to decide whether or not the treatment is offensive.

Racial harassment can include: abusive language; racist jokes; racially offensive material; exclusion from workplace conversations or activities; and violence or the threat of violence.

1. Subconscious association

In Brown v Young & Co’s Brewery , the employment tribunal had the unusual task of considering whether or not a manager harassed a black pub worker when he told him that he “looked like a pimp” when he was wearing a promotional St Patrick’s Day hat.

The employment tribunal accepted that the manager had used the word “pimp” because the claimant was black and that the word was insulting and undermined him.

The tribunal acknowledged that the manager may have made the association subconsciously.

However, the tribunal found that the single comment had the effect of violating the claimant’s dignity and it was reasonable for the claimant to be offended.

2. “Banter” may not succeed as a defence

Employers investigating allegations of discriminatory comments should never brush off the complaint solely on the basis that the remarks were “banter”, as the employer in Harper v Housing 21 discovered to its cost.

The employment tribunal found that comments likening the claimant to “My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding” characters amounted to race discrimination.

The comments were found to be racial harassment as they were made only because the claimant was Irish.

3. Race-related comments not directed at claimant may amount to harassment

Tackling racial harassment in the workplace.

How to deal with bullying and harassment in the workplace

Equal opportunities and dignity at work policy

In Morgan v Halls of Gloucester , the tribunal held that a series of inappropriate comments about race by blue-collar workers, not necessarily directed at the claimant, amounted to harassment.

The tribunal found that the comments could reasonably be considered to have the effect of violating the claimant’s dignity.

The claimant was entitled to be compensated for the upset that he had suffered.

4. Dismissal may be fair where claimant used a racist term heard by white colleagues only

In Mann v NSL Ltd , the tribunal held that an employer fairly dismissed an employee for using a racist term in the presence of white colleagues.

The tribunal found that the employee’s use of the racist term was highly offensive and it did not matter that the employee had not realised that someone else was listening nor that he did not mean to offend anyone.

Equally, it made no difference to the tribunal that the comments were made in the presence of white people only.

5. Allegations of racism should always be investigated

Employer liability for harassment.

Can an employer be liable for a third party’s actions?

Can employers be liable for harassment at a work-related social event?

Is it lawful to dismiss a harassment complaint from an “over-sensitive” employee?

McCammon v Gillingham Football Club is an example for all employers of how not to deal with a complaint of discrimination in the workplace.

The tribunal held that the footballer’s dismissal was unfair and also amounted to an act of victimisation.

The club’s dismissal letter clearly stated that one of the reasons for the dismissal was that the player had made “very serious accusations of racism”.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

The tribunal rejected the club’s argument that the accusations had been made in bad faith as the club had taken no steps to investigate the allegations and had simply discounted them as being without merit.

The tribunal was also critical of the club for failing to produce the equal opportunities policy that it said existed.

Fiona Cuming

What the great british bake off teaches us about retaining talent, employing students: six tips for the new term, leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

Top 10 hr questions august 2024: duty to..., challenges in seeking justice for victims of bullying..., pontins apologises for discrimination against traveller community, hybrid work discrimination claim fails at tribunal, sales worker ‘asked if her name was real’..., tuc poll: more than half lgbtq+ workers harassed..., teacher who called pupils ‘chattering monkeys’ loses dismissal..., reservist wins landmark territorial army pensions case, ba’s associative discrimination appeal dismissed by eat, hr must not let bigots win when it....

How Race Can Impact Sourcing Decisions

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email
• Download PDF

Racial discrimination and inequality are pressing issues throughout the world. Notably, a 2021   report by McKinsey revealed that unless progress accelerates, it could take up to 320 years to eliminate existing gaps in outcomes for White and Black Americans and achieve racial equality. 

Given the interpersonal nature of racial discrimination, it has been researched in relation to labour, housing and peer-to-peer markets, which has led to the creation of  protective laws . Surprisingly, whether and how racial discrimination affects inter-corporate dealings remains largely unexplored, potentially due to the assumption that business-to-business relationships are immune from such bias. 

While this may be the case for formalised trade relationships between large firms, racial bias could creep in in less formal settings, with negative implications for more vulnerable small businesses. If so, entrepreneurial activity, which is widely regarded to be a prime tool for addressing the   racial wealth gap , cannot fulfil its promise. 

In our  research published in Production and Operations Management , we investigated whether racial discrimination influences sourcing decisions. The survival of businesses – particularly small, minority-owned ones – depends on winning contracts from buyer firms. The presence of racial bias in sourcing would suggest that entrepreneurship cannot serve its function as an organic economic-levelling mechanism. Uncovering whether discrimination exists in sourcing is therefore of utmost importance to help create and steer policies and managerial guidelines.

What’s in a name?

We ran a series of controlled experiments to study whether racial discrimination affects sourcing decisions. These focused on two stages of the procurement process, which are the key responsibilities of a procurement manager: order management and supplier selection. Study participants – individuals in the United States who held a management role – were randomly assigned to either a control or treatment condition.

Our aim was to analyse if the race of the sales manager (on the supplier side) affected the procurement manager’s choice in selecting a supplier. To do so, we manipulated the buyer’s perception of the sales manager’s race by using names that, according to  prior research , are perceived as  racially distinctive . Additionally, we conducted a test on the perceptions of race associated with first and last name combinations to ensure they were perceived as racially distinctive for the purposes of our study.

In the control condition, participants assumed the role of a procurement manager and were presented with the choice between two suppliers with “White” names (i.e. Todd Meyer and Brad Hershberger), where one of the suppliers offered the buyer a lower price. In the treatment condition, participants were also asked to choose between two suppliers. However, in this case, the supplier offering a cheaper unit price had a “Black” name (Lamar Jackson) while the other had a “White” name (Brad Hershberger).

We found that participants were 6.5 percent less likely to opt for the supplier presenting a lower price when the latter had a distinctively “Black” name. While 61.6 percent of participants in the control group chose the cheaper supplier, only 55.1 percent of those in the treatment group made the same choice. The difference was statistically significant. This effect was observed when controlling for the race and gender of the buyer, and additional analysis confirmed the robustness of our findings.

The effect of racial bias in sourcing

Overall, our findings indicate that there may be considerable racial bias when it comes to making sourcing decisions. One could say that in real life, where procurement and sales managers are likely to interact in person (which leaves no room for race perception mistakes), discrimination could be even more pronounced than the extent we detected in our experiments.

Even when organisations are committed to responsible operations, they may unknowingly become discriminatory buyers and perpetuate the racial divide through the actions of their procurement managers. This can significantly hurt the businesses’ profitability by limiting its supplier pool, as potential suppliers who may have been a good fit for the company are eliminated due to racial discrimination. As a result, buyer firms may be left with higher-cost suppliers, as well as a smaller supplier base than what is optimal. This consequently leads to an increase in procurement costs, impacting the firm’s bottom line.

If, instead, buyer firms can eradicate racial bias in supplier selection, they are more likely to include more suppliers that are owned and operated by individuals from underrepresented or underserved groups. This could increase the size of their supplier base and decrease procurement cost. What’s more, increasing the ratio of minority-owned suppliers would help improve the corporate social responsibility (CSR) profile of the company. 

The road ahead

We suggest that  procurement bias training and supplier diversity programmes (where firms set targets for purchases from minority-owned suppliers) can help improve profitability by expanding the firm’s supplier pool. Procurement bias training would help procurement managers build awareness on how bias could impact supplier selection, as well as provide tools to help them recognise and mitigate their own implicit biases. Supplier diversity programmes may result in guidelines that stipulate a minimum percentage of suppliers that are owned and operated by individuals from underrepresented and underserved groups.

Our findings can inform the ongoing policy debate on the importance of corporate diversity legislation. In the US, there are currently limited regulations that require organisations to promote corporate diversity, and existing ones are often  challenged in court . To address the issue of racial bias in sourcing decisions, equal opportunity laws (similar to those in place in the labour market) could be required specifically for the sourcing context. Their adoption can help enhance the CSR profile and profitability of the affected firms.

We are witnessing an  intense backlash   against corporate  diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts in the US, alongside a shifting policy debate around DEI. Indeed, it was  reported   that Microsoft recently axed its entire DEI team, while other organisations including Meta, Google and Home Depot have  made deep cuts   to their DEI programmes. Minority-owned businesses are   bearing the brunt   of this alarming pivot, with Black business owners reporting a decrease in the support they experienced previously in terms of investment opportunities and access to capital.

Our research suggests that corporate DEI programmes – particularly those that deal with supplier diversity – are not only the responsible thing to do but can also be beneficial for business. Beyond supplier selection, organisations should also recognise that the diversity of their workforce can influence the diversity of their supplier base and should therefore work to improve both aspects simultaneously.

About the author(s)

is an Associate Professor of Supply Chain Management at the Whitman School of Management at Syracuse University. She completed her Master and Doctoral degrees in Technology and Management Operations at INSEAD.

Luk Van Wassenhove

is an Emeritus Professor of Technology and Operations Management and the Henry Ford Chaired Professor of Manufacturing, Emeritus at INSEAD. He leads the INSEAD Humanitarian Research Group as the academic director.

About the research

" Racial Discrimination in Sourcing: Evidence From Controlled Experiments " is published in Production and Operations Management .

Related Tags

Share this post, view comments, no comments yet., leave a comment, please log in or sign up to comment., related reads.

Responsibility

Bringing DEI into the Core of Our Institutions

M. Akinola, Z. Kinias, M. Norton, B. Kessler

Overcoming Barriers to Supply Chain Agility

A. Gumaledar, S. Hasija, P. Padmanabhan

Does Racial Bias Call the Shots in the NBA?

Henrich Greve

Our website has a lot of features which will not display correctly without Javascript.

Please enable Javascript in your browser

Here how you can do it: http://enable-javascript.com

Racial Equality and Inclusivity in Academia: Perspectives and Strategies for Antiracism Outcomes

• First Online: 01 September 2024

Cite this chapter

• Tribe Mkwebu 3  

This chapter critically examines strategies and different ways of understanding institutional racism to argue that there is a need for a coherent framework for change that can contribute to the reduction and/or elimination of racism within higher education institutions (HEIs). George Floyd’s death on 25th May 2020 sparked a global response, hyped up the impetus of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, and beseeched society to concede that being non-racist was not enough to assist humankind become actively antiracist. Society was called to begin acknowledging the existence of deep racial injustices and inequalities in our communities. Universities in the United Kingdom (UK), for example, have been challenged, held to account for their role in institutional racism and are being asked to consider what action to take to become actively antiracist.

There is limited attention in the human resource development (HRD) literature of issues of this nature and this chapter highlights the existence of considerable and longstanding body of evidence of institutional racism within HEIs, that disproportionally affect academic members of staff from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds. Research has revealed that low priority status profiling of BAME faculty and institutionally racist structures in HEIs are key challenges facing BAME academics plotting career pathways to senior leadership roles. Reviewed scholarship indicates a sector that is not only institutionally racist but perpetuate systematic racism through an entrenched culture of racial injustices and inequalities practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Advance HE. Board diversity practice project . Retrieved June 8, 2023, from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/membership/advance-he-membership-benefits/collaborative-development-fund/Board-Diversity-Practice-Project

Advance HE. Race equality charter members . Retrieved June 8, 2023, from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/equality-charters/race-equality-charter/members

Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life . Duke University Press.

Google Scholar  

Alexander, C. (2018). Breaking Black: The death of ethnic and racial studies in Britain. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41 (6), 1034–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2018.1409902

Article   Google Scholar  

Arday, J. (2018). Understanding race and educational leadership in higher education: Exploring the Black and ethnic minority (BME) Experience. Management in Education, 32 (4), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618791002

Arday, J. (2022). Liverpool school of tropical medicine: Improving racial equity in global medicine . An independent report. Retrieved June 18, 2023, from https://www.lstmed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/LSTM%20Race%20Equality%20Review%20-%20Arday%20%28February%202022%29%20FINAL.pdf

Banks-Hall, R., & Miller, O. (2022). Systemic racism, the well-known secret facing African American adjunct and full-time faculty in higher education. In A. Allen & J. Stewart (Eds.),  We're not ok: Black faculty experiences and higher education strategies  (pp. 47–57). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009064668.004

Bešić, E. (2020). Intersectionality: A pathway towards inclusive education? Prospects, 49 (3–4), 111–122.

Bhopal, K., & Brown, H. (2016). Black and minority ethnic leaders: Support networks and strategies for success in higher education . Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. https://www.lfhe.ac.uk/en/research-resources/research-hub/small-development-projects/sdp2015/southampton-po.cfm?utm_campaign=BME%202016

Bhopal, K., & Pitkin, C. (2020). Same old story, just a different policy: Race and policy making in higher education in the UK. Race Ethnicity and Education, 23 (4), 530–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1718082

Bhopal, K. (2015). The experiences of Black and minority ethnic academics: Multiple identities and career progression. In C. Alexander, & J. Arday (Eds.),  Aiming higher: Race, inequality, and diversity in the academy  (pp. 38–40). Runnymede Trust.  http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/Aiming%20Higher.pdf

Brown, K., Carnoy, M., Currie, E., Duster, T., Oppenheimer, B., Shultz, M. M., & Wellman, D. (2003). Whitewashing race: The myth of a color-blind society . University of California Press.

Brown University. Center for Study of Race and Ethnicity in America. Retrieved June 11, 2023, from https://www.brown.edu/academics/race-ethnicity/home

Budhwar, P. S., Varma, A., & Patel, C. (2016). Convergence-divergence of HRM in the Asia Pacific: Context-specific analysis and future research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 26 (4). 311–326. ISSN 1053-4822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.04.004 . https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/68834/

Buitendijk, S., Curry, S., & Maes, K. (2019). Equality, diversity, and inclusion at universities: The power of a systemic approach . Retrieved June 25, 2023, from  https://www.leru.org/publications/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-at-universities

Campion, K., & Clark, K. (2022). Revitalizing race equality policy? Assessing the impact of the Race Equality Charter mark for British universities. Race Ethnicity and Education, 25 (1), 18–37.

Carter, R. T., & Forsyth, J. M. (2009). A guide to the forensic assessment of race-based traumatic stress reactions. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37 (1), 28–40.

Charles, E. (2019). Decolonizing the curriculum.  Insights, 32 (1), 24. ISSN 2048-7754.

Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum , 139–167, Article 8.

Crenshaw, K. W. (1991a). Beyond racism and misogyny: Black feminism and 2 Live Crew. Boston Review , 30–33.

Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43 (6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

Edwards, J. W., & Ross, H. H. (2018). What are they saying? Black faculty at predominantly White institutions of higher education. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 28 (2), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2017.1391731

Equality and Human Rights Commission Report. (2019). Tackling racial harassment: Universities challenged. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/tackling-racial-harassment-universities-challenged

Equality Challenge Unit. (2015). Equality in higher education: Statistical report . ECU. Retrieved June 9, 2023, from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/equality-higher-education-statistical-report-2015

Farndale, E., Biron, M., Briscoe, D. R., & Raghuram, S. (2015). A global perspective on diversity and inclusion in work organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26 (6), 677–687. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/09585192.2014.991511

Fields, A. (2021). Composing an anti-racism and social justice statement at a rural writing center. 40th anniversary special double issue: International Writing Centers Association. The Writing Center Journal , 39 (1/2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1961

Fletcher, L., & Marvell, R. (2023). Furthering transgender inclusion in the workplace: Advancing a new model of allyship intentions and perceptions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34 (9), 1726–1756. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.2023895

Ford, K. S., & Patterson, A. N. (2019). Cosmetic diversity: University websites and the transformation of race categories. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12 (2), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000092

García, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education.  Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13 (2), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.56829/muvo.13.2.yv7822w58116kw42

Geller, A. E., Eodice, M., Condon, F., Carroll, M., & Boquet, E. H. (2007). The everyday writing center: A community of practice . Utah State University Press.

Gillborn, D. (2015). Racism as policy: A critical race analysis of education reforms in the United States and England. The Educational Forum, 78 (1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2014.850982

Gunaratnam, Y. (2003). Researching race and ethnicity: Methods, knowledge, and power . Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024626

Book   Google Scholar  

Higher Education and Research Act (2017). Section 2(8).

Jones A., Maben J., Adams, M. Mannion, R., Banks C., Blake J., Job, K. & Kelly, D. (2022). Implementation of ‘Freedom to Speak Up Guardians’ in NHS acute and mental health trusts in England: The FTSUG mixed-methods study.  Health and Social Care Delivery Research, 10 (23), 1–124.

Karabel, J. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton . Houghton Mifflin.

Khan, M. S., Obasi, A., Deb, R., & Ceesay, S. J. (2022). Committing to anti-racism reforms? Three critical building blocks for global health organizations. PLOS Glob Public Health, 2 (7), e0000653. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000653

Kopp, C. (2009). Morgan Freeman defies labels . CBS NEWS, December 14, 2005. 5.23pm. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/morgan-freeman-defies-labels-14-12-2005/

Law, I. (2017). Building the anti-racist university, Action, and new agendas. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20 (3), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1260232

Leeds Beckett University. Center for Race, Education and Decoloniality (CRED). Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/research/centre-for-race-education-and-decoloniality/

Macpherson, W. (1999).  The Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Report of an inquiry by William Macpherson of Cluny . Retrieved January 9, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf

Mayrhofer, W., Brewster, C., & Farndale, E. (2018). Future avenues for comparative HRM. In C. Brewster, W. Mayrhofer, & E. Farndale (Eds.), Handbook of research in comparative human resource management  (2nd, updated and extended ed.). Edward Elgar.

Mukwende, M., Tamony, P., & Turner, M. (2020). Mind the gap: A handbook of clinical signs in Black and Brown skin. St George's University of London. Online Resource. https://doi.org/10.24376/rd.sgul.12769988.v1

Nelson, J., Director, & Brooks, L., University of Washington School of Social Work. (2016, December). Racial equity toolkit: An opportunity to operationalize equity. Government Alliance on Race & Equity (GARE) . https://www.racialequityalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GARE-Racial_Equity_Toolkit.pdf

Nous Group. (2021). Independent review to address discrimination and advance anti-racism . London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/media/56316

Office for Students, Regulatory Framework, 2018. p. 15.

Ovseiko, P. V., Chapple, A., Edmunds, L. D., & Ziebland, S. (2017). Advancing gender equality through the Athena SWAN Charter for women in science: An exploratory study of women’s and men’s perceptions.  Health Research Policy and Systems, 15 (12). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0177-9

Parker, J. (2017). A report into the ethnic diversity of UK Boards . The Parker Review Final Report. Retrieved June 21, 2023, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ethnic-diversity-of-uk-boards-the-parker-review

Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains.  The Academy of Management Review, 33 (1), 194–215. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159383

Rollock, N. (2018). The heart of Whiteness: Racial gesture politics, equity, and higher education. In J. Arday & H. S. Mirza (Eds.), Dismantling race in higher education racism, Whiteness and decolonizing the academy (pp. 313–330) . Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-319-60260-8.

Rush, S. E. (2011). Talking about race and equality.  University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, 22 (3). Retrieved June 16, 202, from http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/118

Schuler, R. S., & Tarique, I. (2007). International human resource management: A North American perspective, a thematic update, and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18 (5), 717–744. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/09585190701246590

Scott, C. L. (2005). Current status of diversity initiatives in HRD. International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Nations, and Communities, 5 , 24–31.

Scott, C. L. (2007). A discussion of individual, institutional, and cultural racism, with implications for HRD. In F. Nafukho (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development. 2007 Annual Conference. AHRD. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504856.pdf

Shafi, A. A., Clarke, D., Norman, L., & Andrews, M. (2023). Striving for diversity of leadership: Governance in UK higher education institutions. Higher Education Governance & Policy, 4 (1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.55993/hegp.1236352

Shapiro, T. M. (2004). The hidden cost of being African American: How wealth perpetuates poverty . Oxford University Press.

Singh, G., & Kwahli, J. (2015). How can we make not break Black and minority ethnic leaders in higher education? Stimulus paper . Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. ISBN: 978-1-906627-77-5. Retrieved June 21, 2023, from https://www.lfhe.ac.uk/en/research-resources/published-research/research-bytheme/leading-equality-and-diversity/how-can-we-make-not-break-black-and-minorityethnic-leaders-in-higher-education.cfm

Singleton, G., & Linton, C. (2006). Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving equity in schools . Corwin Press.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin. M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62 (4), 271–286. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271

Tate, S. A., & Bagguley, P. (2017). Building the anti-racist university: Next steps. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20 (3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1260227

Terry, J. (1974). Institutional racism in the United States. Oxford University Press, 19 (2), 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/19.2.130

Tucker, W. H. (2007). The ideology of racism: Misusing science to justify racial discrimination. UN Chronicle, 44 (3), 18–19.

Turner, C. S. V., Gonzalez, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academic: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1 (3), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012837

Tyson, K. (2011). Integration interrupted: Tracking, Black students, & acting White after Brown . Oxford University Press.

Wang, J., Leu, J., & Shoda, Y. (2011). When the seemingly innocuous “stings”: Racial microaggressions and their emotional consequences.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,   37 (12), 1666–1678. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0146167211416130

Wingfield, A. H., & Chavez, K. (2020). Getting in, getting hired, getting sideways looks: Organizational hierarchy and perceptions of racial discrimination. American Sociological Review, 85 (1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419894335

Wolbring, G., & Lillywhite, A. (2021). Equity/equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in universities: The case of disabled people. Societies, 11 (2), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020049

Universities UK. (2020). Tackling racial harassment in higher education (68 pp.). Universities UK. Retrieved June 30, 2023, from https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/sites/default/files/field/downloads/2021-08/tackling-racial-harassment-in-higher-education.pdf

University of Leeds. Centre for Ethnicity and Racism Studies. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://cers.leeds.ac.uk/

University of Nottingham. Center for Research in Race and Rights (C3R): An Interdisciplinary Approach to Equality and Social Justice. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/c3r/index.aspx

University of Southern California. USC Race Equity Center. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://race.usc.edu/

Veenstra, G. (2011). Race, gender, class, and sexual orientation: Intersecting axes of inequality and self-rated health in Canada.  International Journal of Equity in Health , 10 (3). https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-10-3 . PMID: 21241506; PMCID: PMC3032690.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Business and Law, School of Law, University of Northumbria, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

Tribe Mkwebu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tribe Mkwebu .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Oklahoma, Huntsville, TX, USA

Marilyn Y. Byrd

Oakland University, Southfield, MI, USA

Chaunda L. Scott

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Mkwebu, T. (2024). Racial Equality and Inclusivity in Academia: Perspectives and Strategies for Antiracism Outcomes. In: Byrd, M.Y., Scott, C.L. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Antiracism in Human Resource Development. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52268-0_21

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52268-0_21

Published : 01 September 2024

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-52267-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-52268-0

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

• Education News
• Study Abroad News

Indian Student Accuses Oxford University of Discrimination: What Our Students Need to Know About UK Laws on Racial Bias

The Equality Act 2010

The human rights act 1998, how these laws help indian students in the uk, visual stories.