Tagged: pattern and practice discrimination

watch BILL MAHER, BEN AFFLECK and others debate about ISLAMOPHOBIA.

but nobody discussed that the “Jews” who inhabit Israel are not the original Jews or that all three of the major religions (e.g. Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have African origins. these European “Jews” falsely believe that they are “God’s chosen people” and thus, they can do whatever the fuck they want, including take other people’s land and kill them for fighting back. this group of people [collectively speaking] are at the root of the world’s problems and they, as well as other whites [collectively speaking], are committing atrocious CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY (e.g. people of African descent, people in the Middle East [racism is bigger than religion], and other non-white cultures/peoples throughout the world). wake up people!!

“I don’t think anyone on this planet would truly want to spend valuable years of their life challenging institutional racism, but unfortunately for William Morris, they discriminated against the wrong ‘nigger.'” #wherearetheemailstoExhibit31?

Source: Pl. March 17, 2014 Fraud Upon the Court Motion, pg. 92.

The Case of Monopolies and the Act of 21 James I (Statute of Monopolies) “form one of the constitutional landmarks of British liberty, like the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus act and other great constitutional acts of Parliament. They established and declared one of the inalienable rights of freemen which our ancestors brought with them to this country. The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that, ‘all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals by investing the latter with a monopoly is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the Constitution.”

Source: Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111  U.S. 746, 762 (1884).

I think it’s probably best for the NY Attorney’s General office to forward my complaint against William Morris Endeavor Entertainment for intentional violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Mr. Eric Holder…

I have presented a pyramid of evidence demonstrating William Morris’ 116 year pattern and continuing practice of intentionally discriminating against African Americans — which is not limited to employment.

In the section titled “Civil Actions By the Attorney General” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states in §2000e-6:

(a) Complaint

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this subchapter, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.

(b) Jurisdiction; three-judge district court for cases of general public importance: hearing, determination, expedition of action, review by Supreme Court; single judge district court: hearing, determination, expedition of action

The district courts of the United States shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section, and in any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a three-­judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.

In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.

What’s the diversity like at the New York Attorney General’s office? Hmmm….It doesn’t appear to be too many African American investigators or African Americans employed in positions of power there. If so, why haven’t I met one given the severity of William Morris’ wrongdoing? Eric Holder should step in, so he can also investigate the unlawful actions of William Morris’ counsel Loeb & Loeb LLP (including attorneys Michael P. Zweig, Helen Gavaris, Christian Carbone, Tal Dickstein, Michael Barnett and Michael Beck), as well as their co-conspirators (including Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP (now known as Dentons LLP), Martin Gold, Raymond Heslin, Richard Primoff, Republican appointed federal judge Robert P. Patterson, the American Arbitration Association, Timothy K. Lewis and many others.

Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is unlawful for an employer “(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” §2000e-2(a).

So many people have an opinion about employment discrimination, but majority have never even read the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm.

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.

Section 703(m) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this [title], an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates [that a protected characteristic] was a motivating factor for any employment practice.”

“A plaintiff may present evidence about the make-up of the employer’s workforce that suggests an unwillingness to hire minorities or women or a tendency to segregate them into lower-status jobs.”

See, e.g., Simms v. Oklahoma, 165 F.3d 1321, 1328 (10th Cir. 1999); Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir. 1984); Aracne v. Lucky Stores Inc., No. C81394RPA, 1983 WL 495, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 1983) (stating that the plaintiff provided evidence that the employer had not hired any new women to work in his plant from 1974 to 1983).

Source: William R. Corbett, Unmasking A Pretext For Res Ipsa Loquittur: A Proposal To Let Employment Discrimination Speak For Itself. 62 Am. U. L. Rev. 447, 451 2013.

Former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich said “that subtle but pervasive patterns of discrimination dominate the public, private and nonprofit sectors of society because of a ‘myopia’ on the part of many white male managers who ‘unthinkingly discriminate’ without having any idea they are doing so.”

Speaking in New York at the fifth and final hearing of a Congressional commission studying discrimination at the executive level, Mr. Reich said artificial barriers to advancement are holding back many women and minorities from attaining positions commensurate with their skills, training and numbers, and preventing the economy from growing to its full potential.

“Walk through the boardrooms or executive suites of many companies, and it’s still difficult to find a single woman or minority man,” he said in the fifth and final hearing of the Glass Ceiling Commission. “Even though women are half the work force, they make up only between 3 and 6 percent of corporate executives and officers. Minorities account for only one percent.”

Statistics presented today painted a monochromatic picture of life in the executive suites three decades after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and long after calls by leaders of the women’s movement for a revolution in America’s boardrooms.

They also showed the Federal Government’s top echelons out of kilter with its vast work force. Minorities account for 28 percent of Federal jobs but fill only 8 percent of the top posts, said Mr. Reich. Women make up 44 percent of the work force, but 87 percent of the top posts are held by men.

“In Washington sometimes,” Mr. Reich told a packed hall at the City Bar Association’s headquarters on West 44th Street, “the only architectural feature as prominent as the Capitol Dome is the glass ceiling.”

The Glass Ceiling Commission was created by Congress in 1991 to study impediments to the advancement of minorities and women to the top rungs of power. It is expected to file a report to President Clinton early next year. Today’s hearing explored inequalities in places that included corporate boardrooms, exclusive law firms and the nation’s best colleges and universities.

Some of the solutions, several speakers said, are already in place in Federal legislation and policies. But a lack of resources and minimal enforcement efforts have led to an environment in which corporate heads and other leaders have been able to ignore existing regulations.

Source: Catherine S. Manegold, “‘Glass Ceiling’ Is Pervasive, Secretary of Labor Contends.” New York Times. September 27, 1994. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/27/us/glass-ceiling-is-pervasive-secretary-of-labor-contends.html.

“Professors Kevin Clermont and Stewart Schwab have studied the rates of success for plaintiffs in federal employment litigation at the trial and appellate levels, and compared them with similar statistics for other types of federal litigation. In their most recent study, they found that for the years 1998-2006, the win rate for Title VII plaintiffs in federal district court was 10.88%, as compared with 9.12% for ADA plaintiffs, 11.67% for ADEA plaintiffs, and 10.96% for Section 1981 race discrimination plaintiffs. Over the period from 1979-2006, plaintiffs in all types of federal employment cases won only about 15% of the time, while plaintiffs in other types of federal litigation won approximately 51% of the time. For cases actually reaching trial, the win rates were approximately 28% for employment plaintiffs, compared to 45% for other federal plaintiffs.”

Source: Jason R. Bent. The Telltale Sign of Discrimination: Probabilities, Information Asymmetries and the Systemic Disparate Treatment Theory, 44 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 797, 834-835. Summary 2011.