Tagged: Civil Right Act of 1964
“In fact, the unemployment rate in 2013 was lower among whites who never finished high school (9.7 percent) than it was for blacks with some college education (10.5 percent).”
This is insane, especially when whites proclaim that they are where they are, due to “merit”!! No. They are where they are largely due to a legacy of racism and continuing race-based discrimination in the present. Our nation’s racial caste system is not due to chance or accidental. Congress must restrengthen the Civil Rights Act of 1964!
Source: Patricia Cohen. “For Recent Black College Graduates, A Tougher Road to Employment.” New York Times. December 24, 2014. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/business/for-recent-black-college-graduates-a-tougher-road-to-employment.html?_r=0.
“The rise of employment arbitration agreements traces back to Congress’ enactment of Title VII and other anti-discriminatory statutes. As a result, there was a subsequent rise in employment litigation. Employers began to include mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment agreements to minimize contact with the judicial system and the risk of unfavorable verdicts.”
For employers, arbitration agreements are nothing more than a “savvy, legal loophole” to avoid litigating potential statutory claims in a public forum.
Source: Janna Giesbrecht-McKee, The Fairness Problem: Mandatory Arbitration in Employment Contracts. 50 Williamette Law Review 259, 265, 2014.
President Obama issues executive order that “ends corporate immunity” and BANS “corporations who contract with the federal government from having forced arbitration clauses for their employees”!!
“It’s the biggest step forward in civil rights in the United States probably since the 1991 Civil Rights Restoration Act.” — Paul Bland, Executive Director of Public Justice. Some kind of “restoration” if the Act was supposed to strengthen disparate impact theory and allow for jury trials when 23 years later, the Supreme Court has stated that disparate impact theory is possibly “unconstitutional” and employers can have employees of color waive their full statutory rights as a condition of employment. Smh.
Bland also referenced a study conducted by Cornell law professor Alexander Colvin, which concluded that “arbitration outcomes are generally less favorable to employees than those from employment litigation.” It can be read here: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1586&context=articles.
It’s time for Congress to pass the Arbitration Fairness Act so that no pre-dispute arbitration agreement signed as a condition of employment will be enforceable in a court of law. Employment discrimination cases, especially those involving allegations of racial discrimination, need to be decided in a public forum, with the merits ultimately being determined by an impartial jury.
wtf. i’ve been working so hard that i was six months late in finding out about this feud between Irving Azoff and co-CEO of WME Ariel Emanuel, in which Azoff accuses Emanuel of getting away with “CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR”!!!??!!!
Has Ari gone after Irving for defamation, slander and libel? I do not think so, nor will he. So how the hell does Arbitrator Gregory think he’s going to find me guilty of defamation against William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig and others for accusing them of doing the SAME DAMN THING??? At the end of the day, the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to make that decision given that he refused to decide both of my conspiracy claims and a jury has to decide this criminal matter. #fraud #racism #conspiracy #globalJewishsupremacy #globalwhitesupremacy
Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/irving-azoffs-wife-ari-emanuel-574960.
disparate impact: “if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as [ONE] employment practice.”
(1) (A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or
(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice.
(B) (i) With respect to demonstrating that a particular employment practice causes a disparate impact as described in subparagraph (A)(i), the complaining party shall demonstrate that each particular challenged employment practice causes a disparate impact, except that if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment practice.
(ii) If the respondent demonstrates that a specific employment practice does not cause the disparate impact, the respondent shall not be required to demonstrate that such practice is required by business necessity.
(C) The demonstration referred to by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be in accordance with the law as it existed on June 4, 1989, with respect to the concept of “alternative employment practice”.
(2) A demonstration that an employment practice is required by business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination under this subchapter.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, a rule barring the employment of an individual who currently and knowingly uses or possesses a controlled substance, as defined in schedules I and II of section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), other than the use or possession of a drug taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional, or any other use or possession authorized by the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.] or any other provision of Federal law, shall be considered an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter only if such rule is adopted or applied with an intent to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
I’ve proven these things thanks to the historical “inexorable zero” at William Morris and the Respondents’ refusal and/or inability to provide a “business necessity” for their discriminatory and anti-competitive employment practices, policies and/or procedures that create a glaring disparate impact against qualified African Americans and other people of color from being hired and/or promoted.
Me Against Iniquity: Understanding the Complexities of Global White Supremacy (Racism) Through The Eyes of an Unapologetically BLACK Intellectual 