It’s funny to read this, because I argued in my March 2011 Opp. Motion to Arbitration that based on the company’s century-plus pattern and continuing practice of intentionally excluding qualified African Americans from being hired and/or promoted to Agent, Coordinator and Agent Trainee (as demonstrated by the New York office’s modern day inexorable zero when I began employment), William Morris’ arbitration agreements were nothing more than a “savvy, legal loophole” to avoid an impartial jury. Now, I discover an article written in 2001, where the author essentially uses the same phrase to describe some employer’s arbitration agreements due to the fact that “some employers” have and still are strategically using this agreement as a deceptive way to exempt themselves from Title VII’s provisions.

Clearly, if a company is intentionally maintaining a racially segregated workforce (e.g. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment) and their attorneys can never provide a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” or demonstrate a “business justification” for maintaining employment practices, policies and/or procedures that create a disparate impact against qualified African Americans and people of color, then that company is clearly going to want potential claims of racial discrimination made by token minorities out of the court so that the merits will never have a chance at being decided by “the people” — an impartial jury that will most likely not be all-white. It is unconscionable that William Morris can be allowed to act in complete defiance of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it’s even more unconscionable that they make employees of color enter into agreements as a condition of employment that eliminate their full statutory rights and remedies by having cases decided in a privitized, quasi-judicial forum that’s pro-employer or repeat player. Unconscionability magnifies when federal judges judges within our nation’s white/”Jewish” controlled judiciary flout the antiscrimination laws themselves and enforce their mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements when in most cases, the employee has little to no bargaining power and most likely has no idea what arbitration is. The icing on the unconscionable cake comes when after three years of litigating and arbitrating your case, you learn that one of the opposing attorneys — Christian Carbone of Loeb & Loeb LLP — is married to an executive — Sasha Angelique Carbone — that works at the supposedly “neutral” arbitral forum [the American Arbitration Association] that ended up dismissing my case with “prejudice and on the merits” after unlawfully disqualifying the original arbitrator who concluded that I proved by a “preponderance of the evidence” that “William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC discriminated against [me] in violation of pertinent federal, state, and local law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race” and indicated that I would receive the full gamut of monetary damages which was to be determined during phase 2 of our bifurcated proceeding. [When I filed my Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, I sought $125 million.]

As a result of the immense fraud that William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP and their co-conspirators have engaged in, William Morris has never had to face any repercussions for their unlawful employment practices, policies and procedures since this law was passed 50 years ago and based on the decisions of Republican appointed federal judges Robert P. Patterson and P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York (as well as federal judges in the Second Circuit and Supreme Court), they and other tortfeasors who are maintaining employment practices in violation of Title VII, will never have to fully comply with the various federal, state and local laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and conspiracies to monopolize on the basis of race. Smh.

Source: Sidney Charlotte Reynolds. “Closing a Discrimination Loophole: Using Title VII’s Anti-Retaliation Provision to Prevent Employers from Requiring Unlawful Arbitration Agreements as Conditions of Continued Employment.” 76 Wash. L. Rev. 957. (2001).