Tagged: NYSHRL

in the past three days, the New York Times has published two informative articles about arbitration & the privatization of our [corrupt] judicial system. 

The first article was published on October 31, 2015 and is titled “Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice” [http://nyti.ms/1KMvBJg]. The second article was published on November 1, 2015 and is titled “In Arbitration, a ‘Privatization of the Justice System’” [http://nyti.ms/1kkstih].

The timing of these articles couldn’t have been any better since I’ve raised these issues, in part, in my petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court against my former employer, William Morris Endeavor Entertainment.

Petition For Writ of Certiorari [September 23, 2015]:

WME and Loeb & Loeb LLP’s Response Waiver [October 21, 2015]:

Most people do not know what arbitration is, but many of us have signed these unconscionable, pre-dispute contracts that remove potential lawsuits from the courts and thus, prevent impartial juries from deciding the merits of potential disputes that may arise. As the first article indicates, the “deck of justice” is “stacked” in favor of corporations and others with superior bargaining power who spend a lot of money with private, quasi-judicial forums like the American Arbitration Association to decide potential disputes with their employees. Many employers, like William Morris, are using these contracts as savvy, legal loopholes to avoid the full legal repercussions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for their intentional violations of our nation’s antidiscrimination laws.

I know you may not have any knowledge or interest in American law, the U.S. Constitution, etc., but PAY ATTENTION! Our most basic and fundamental human and constitutional rights are being stripped from us all!! Please read both articles or at the least, view the video that’s included in the second article. We must demand that Congress pass the Arbitration Fairness Act!!

“Employment discrimination law is at a crossroads. A wealth of interdisciplinary research suggests that the problem for the future of workplace equality is subtle and ‘structural’ rather than overt and individual. Race, sex, and other protected group characteristics will continue to factor into employment decisions, but the decisions are more likely to be driven by unconscious biases and stereotypes operating within a facilitating organizational context than by conscious animus operating in isolation. Recognizing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the mainstay of legal prohibition on discrimination in employment, falls short of addressing the problem, legal scholars have begun to formulate a new paradigm of regulation that would impose an obligation on employers—through legal rights or otherwise—to take structural measures to minimize discriminatory bias in workplace decisionmaking. This ‘structural approach’ aims to minimize discriminatory decisionmaking at the individual level and to reduce unequal treatment in the workplace by pushing change at the organizational level in work environments and decisionmaking systems.”

Green said this eight years ago! Now employment discrimination law is on its deathbed, especially when the plaintiff is African American, due to the large number of ideologically conservative, white [male] federal judges that preside over these types of cases!!

Source Tristin K. Green. A Structural Approach as Antidiscrimination Mandate: Locating Employer Wrong. Vanderbilt Law Review. Pg. 850. 2007.

day 3 of writing. this petition is slowly coming together…

writofcertiorariscreenshot (2)

After nearly five years, this case is actually heading to the Supreme Court! Wow!! After creating this cover page, this reality is actually beginning to sink in. I’m already at 7,000 words [there is a 9,000 word limit], so I’m going to give myself a few more weeks to sit with it and make it the best that it can be before I submit it. Never give up and never let anyone deter you from your goals!!

“In the American judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge. Clothed with the power of the state and authorized to pass judgment on the most basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution. The injuries inflicted may be severe and enduring. Yet the recent expansion of a judge-made exception to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1871, chief vehicle for redress of civil rights violations, has rendered state judges immune from suit even for the most bizarre, corrupt, or abusive of judicial acts. In the last decade this ‘doctrine of judicial immunity’ has led to a disturbing series of legal precedents that effectively deny citizens any redress for injuries, embarrassment, and unjust imprisonment caused by errant judges.”

Source: Robert Craig Waters. Judicial Immunity v. Due Process: When Should A Judge Be Subject To Suit? Cato Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2 pg. 461 (Fall 1987).

“In an email sent to Sony’s top lawyer and other high ranking executives at the company, one former employee alleges a workplace of horrors, filled with sexual harassment, racism, verbal abuse and gender bias. An unnamed African-American woman who worked for Keith Le Goy, President of International Distribution at Sony Pictures Television, claims she and other African-American coworkers were passed over for promotions in favor of less experienced Caucasian employees, that she was the victim of frequent expletive-laden verbal attacks and she alleges that Le Goy sexually harassed her on multiple occasions.”

keithlegoy

Is this guy “Jewish” or is he mixed? The dreads are throwing me off. Lol. I read this lady’s e-mails and she’s too detailed to be lying. This guy sounds like he’s a real douche. Even if he was the nicest boss in the world, it is clear that Sony’s employment practices, policies and procedures are creating a disparate impact against qualified African Americans from being hired and/or promoted to meaningful positions at Sony Pictures — like most of the studios, networks and talent agencies in Hollywood. Time for this woman to lawyer up (she probably already has) because she definitely has a case under Title VII, Section 1981, NYSHRL and NYCHRL!

Source: Chris Spargo. “Sony Employee Alleges Rampant Workplace Racism in Leaked Email Days After Studio Head Amy Pascal’s Racist Email Exchange About President Obama Went Public.” December 12, 2014.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2871867/Sony-employee-alleges-rampant-workplace-racism-leaked-email-days-studio-head-Amy-Pascal-s-racist-email-exchange-President-Obama-went-public.html; See also, Sam Biddle. “Email Alleges Racism and Sexual Harassment Horror at Sony.” Gawker. December 12, 2014. http://gawker.com/leaked-email-alleges-racism-and-sexual-harassment-horro-1670318085.

“Given the systemic nature of racism, the courts can no longer enable employers to supersede federal, state and city civil and human rights laws by compelling future employees into ‘mandatory’ arbitration, specifically on issues of ‘discrimination.’ What incentive do these employers have to comply with the civil and human rights laws? As demonstrated by WME, there is no incentive, and until companies are held accountable for their actions, the cycle will only continue.”

Source: July 10, 2011 Letter to P. Kevin Castel Seeking An Expedited Ruling on Defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration.

“Part II examines the remarkable record of congressional amendments rejecting narrowing interpretations of employment discrimination laws. Occasionally, Congress has codified a narrowing interpretation, but as in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, almost always as part of a package of expansionary amendments, many explicitly rejecting decisions of the Supreme Court. Far more common are amendments targeting narrowing interpretations by the Supreme Court and overruling those decisions. Such amendments have occurred under all the major civil rights statutes, as early as 1978 and as late as 2009.”

Source: George Rutherglen. Title VII As Precedent: Past and Prologue for Future Legislation. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties. pg. 161. June 2014.

“Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after nearly ninety years in which it enacted no major civil rights legislation.’ The 1964 Act stood out then-as it stands out now-as Congress acting at its best rather than its worst. It confronted the historic problem of race in America, it overcame partisan divisions and sectional obstruction, and it acted to enforce constitutional principles. This is not to say that sponsors of the legislation made no compromises in the 1964 Act. On the contrary, they had to do so, particularly in the Senate, to obtain the two-thirds majority then needed to close off debate and end a filibuster. The resulting legislation, compromises and all, then became the foundation for all of employment discrimination law, providing the template for prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of age and disability. Even more remarkably, the legislation was consistently extended and reinforced, often over the narrowing interpretations imposed by the Supreme Court.”

Source: George Rutherglen. Title VII As Precedent: Past and Prologue for Future Legislation. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties. pg. 169-160. June 2014.

if the finder of fact concluded that a company did in fact engage in an intentional pattern and practice of racial discrimination against African Americans and people of color for 112 years, would I be justified in seeking to have my employment discrimination claims, which include disparate impact and pre and post-hiring individual disparate treatment, decided by an impartial jury in the federal court — despite signing a mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreement as a condition of employment? Congress must pass the Arbitration Fairness Act!!