Tagged: proving employment discrimination

“Congress directed the thrust of [Title VII] to the CONSEQUENCES of employment practices, not simply the motivation.”

One of the most obvious “consequences” of an employer’s violation of Title VII, is the existence of zero and/or a gross underrepresentation of qualified African Americans employed in meaningful positions throughout the workplace. If this occurs over a period of decades and no “legitimate, nondiscrminatory” reason can be provided by the employer to explain the dearth of blacks in the workplace, one must logically conclude that the employer’s employment practices, policies and procedures are NOT lawful and statistically, this is NOT “due to chance.”

Source: Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 432 (1971) (emphasis added).

“Washington cannot cite to a stack of studies on discrimination that have nothing to do with WME and rely exclusively on them in claiming that WME has been engaged in a 100-year-old conspiracy to maintain white/Jewish dominance of the entertainment industry. To accept Washington’’s argument would be to endorse his racial and ethnic stereotyping and to permit a claimant to evade summary judgment based simply upon a generalized and inaccurate view of the entertainment industry and the talent agency workplace. Washington has admitted that WME never treated him differently because of his race; and his claim of disparate treatment fails for that reason alone.” — Michael Zweig of Loeb & Loeb LLP, November 20, 2013

If William Morris were truly innocent of Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb LLP’s criminal and unethical conduct, I think they would have a pretty strong claim for malpractice….

It’s funny to note that this statement was made in direct response to my following statement, in which they quote me in their Final Position Statement [pg. 8]:

Mr. Washington is not alleging that William Morris discriminated against him due to his race, color and/or perceived national origin. Based on the federal, state and city civil and human rights laws, the overwhelming amount of sociological and organizational research on the topic of discrimination in the workplace, and numerous articles published over the decades chronicling this issue of racism in Hollywood in magazines and newspapers including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly and others, this is fact.

I said this in paragraph 172 of my COMPLAINT that was filed with the Southern District of New York on DECEMBER 21, 2010!! I knew then — “based on the federal, state and city civil and human rights laws, the overwhelming amount of sociological and organizational research on the topic of discrimination in the workplace, and numerous articles published over the decades chronicling this issue of racism in Hollywood….” that I uncovered between June and December 2010 — that my claims of pre and post-hiring individual disparate treatment due to my “race, color and/or perceived national origin” were a “fact.” I was not making an “alleg[ation]” against William Morris any longer (e.g. trying to discuss the issue with former COO Cara Stein and HR’s Carole Katz while employed, filing complaint with EEOC, etc.) and the additional evidence I’ve uncovered over the last three years since filing my complaint (e.g. “Exhibit 31” and the “on-going” conspiracy to conceal these “nigger” e-mails) further proves this is a fact — no matter what conclusion Gregory reaches on December 23, 2013.

two methods of proving employment discrimination.

A plaintiff can prove discrimination in either of two ways: by demonstrating an individual instance of discrimination directed at the plaintiff, or by showing a pattern of discrimination by the defendant directed generally against a particular group (disparate treatment and disparate impact). Since a single incident of discrimination can be subtle and the evidence required to prove it primarily inferential, plaintiffs generally choose to show a pattern of discrimination. Employment practices that appear neutral in their treatment of individuals, may impact more severely on protected groups and may not be justified by business necessity. The foundation for such a disparate impact case is often a showing that minorities or women are concentrated in certain positions, or practically absent in other positions. In order to establish a prima facie case, plaintiff may use statistical proof alone. The comparison must be made between the racial composition of the persons holding at-issue positions and the populations of qualified persons in the relevant labor market.

Once a statistical disparity is shown, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the disparity is the result of one or more of the alleged, discriminatory employment practices of the defendant. If the employer successfully establishes a business necessity defense, the plaintiff can still prevail by demonstrating the justification is inadequate or by identifying alternatives to the employer’s practices that meet the employer’s legitimate objectives, but which do not have the undesirable disparate impact.

Source: Larry Varn. Pattern Discovery: Employment Discrimination. 2013.