EEOC Reports Racial Harassment Up In 2007

January 8th, 2008 Posted by Amelia

The EEOC reports that claims of racial harassment have more than doubled in the past 15 years, with claims rising from about 3,000 per year in 1990 to more than 7,000 in 2007.

In fact, claims of racial discrimination exceed even claims of sexual harassment, accounting for 36% of all EEOC charges and more than any other type of harassment.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against employees based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Other laws make it illegal to discriminate based on disability, or against workers over the age of 40.

The EEOC, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, enforces Title VII and other discrimination laws in the nation.

During 2007, Quietflex Manufacturing Company, L.P. paid $2.8 million for discriminating against Hispanic employees. The lawsuit alleges that 78 Latino employees were discriminated against in the company’s transfer policies, and in pay.

Quietflex produces flexible air conditioning ducts and components. The company has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing in the case.

According to the suit, Hispanic employees at the company were denied higher-paying jobs in departments with better working conditions. After a work stoppage to protest the discrimination, the EEOC alleges that Quietflex illegally retaliated against the employees by terminating them. All the employees were rehired shortly afterward.

In January 2007, Target Corp. paid $775,000 for racial harassment to settle a suit. The suit alleged that Target Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by creating a racially hostile work environment at the Springfield, Pennsylvania Target store.

In the suit, the EEOC said that Michael Hill was an apprentice in training to become a store manager. He was subjected to racial harassment by a white store manager. When Hill complained, he was retaliated against, leaving him no choice but to resign. 

Target operates more than 1,500 stores in 47 states, including 175 SuperTarget stores. As part of the settlement, Target agreed to train employees at the Springfield store.

“We are pleased that the parties could reach an amicable resolution of this matter,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair. “We expect the proposed training and emphasis on anti-discrimination policies to create a more employee-friendly work environment at Target’s facility.”

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to deny any person employment due to race, color, sex, religion or national origin. That includes providing a work environment free from illegal harassment and different treatment based on race. In addition, Title VII recognizes that a company that creates an intolerable environment essentially forces the employee to resign. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against someone because he or she has made a complaint of illegal discrimination.

One of the most sensational cases of racial harassment was settled in January 2008, when Lockheed Martin agreed to pay $2.5 million to a single employee for racial harassment. Charlie Daniels, an avionics tech for the Bethesda, Maryland-based military contractor, was exposed to taunts including the “N-word.” According to Daniels, Ku Klux Klan meetings were held in the employee break room and racial graffiti was scrawled on the restroom walls.

When Daniels complained to the HR department, he was retaliated against. When he filed a complaint with the EEOC, Lockheed Martin fired him. In a change of heart, the company agreed to one of the highest settlements ever, fired the harassers, and agreed to annual antidiscrimination training for all employees and managers.

All of the companies mentioned in this article deny any wrongdoing.

On February 28, 2007, EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp launched the Commission’s E-RACE Initiative (Eradicating Racism And Colorism from Employment). E-RACE is a national outreach, education, and enforcement campaign focusing on new and emerging race and color issues in the 21st century workplace.

In 2006, the EEOC received 27,238 complaints alleging race-based discrimination, accounting for 36 percent of the agency’s complaints in the private sector.  Historically, race-based charges are the most frequent type of filing with EEOC offices nationwide.

Last 10 posts by Amelia

« Major 2007 Racial Harassment Settlements
Employers Convicted of Slavery in 2007 »
Posted in Other

  1. Posted by: Diahann

    Can an employer order employees who are Spanish-speaking to translate for them when speaking Spanish is not a condition of employment and not a job requirement? The only basis the employer is using is that each job description states the following, “It does not necessarily describe all of the duties of the position, nor does it imply or represent any form of an employment contract.” The Spanish-speaking employee is being threatened with disciplinary action for failing to follow an order (assisting them by speaking Spanish). The supervisor, will likewise, be disciplined for refusing to order the employee to speak Spanish. Of course, the Administration is not willing to put in writing that their request is legitimate and legal.

  2. Posted by: Amelia

    Hi Diahann! It is not illegal for an employer to ask or require a bilingual employee to translate. There has never been a successful discrimination suit on this matter, and we doubt that there ever will be one.

    Being bilingual is a very highly prized skill. An employee who is bilingual, and who uses those language skills at work, has the right to expect a better performance evaluation and a bigger salary increase than employees who do not have or use those skills.

    It would be ideal if every employer hired an interpreter, but that is not always possible.

    If the employer requested that Puerto Rican employees translate, but not Cuban employees, that might be illegal discrimination based on national origin. If the employer requested that Hispanic employees translated, but not Asian or Caucasian employees who were equally fluent in Spanish, that would probably be illegal discrimination based on race. But it is not discrimination to ask an employee to use his or her skills to benefit the employer — that is what employees are expected to do.

    Suppose that an employer hires a receptionist and learns that she can juggle. Can he require that she juggle to entertain clients who are waiting in the reception area? Yes, he certainly can. Presumably, when evaluation time rolls around, this employee will receive a larger salary increase, or a promotion, due to her superior performance and extra skills. HTH, and thanks for reading the blogs!~ Amelia

RELATED LINKS

Subscribe to RSS

Subscribe to this blog via email
Delivered by FeedBurner
add