BLOG | EDJC

CAMPBELL SOUP IN HOT SOUP

edjusticecntr — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:37:49 +0000

CAMPBELL SOUP IN HOT SOUP

Black Employees File Lawsuit Against Campbell Soup Co.

By: The Industry Cosign
Posted: Jul 15

A nationwide class action lawsuit has been filed against Campbell Soup Company, charging that African American employees are denied professional development opportunities. The lawsuit has been filed in Camden, New Jersey, home of Campbell’s headquarters.

Filing on behalf of the Plaintiff Chester Hicks and the proposed Class are the Houston, Texas based firm, Nelkin, Nelkin & Krock, P.C., and Sidney L. Gold & Associates, based in Philadelphia.

The complaint asserts that African Americas are repeatedly passed over for promotions in favor of less qualified and less experienced white employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a finding of probable cause in connection with Plaintiff Hicks’ charge. The Commission’s investigation revealed that Campbell’s was engaged in the practice of awarding promotions using a subjective, informal, and secretive method in which white managers were selected favored white candidates.

According to the Commission, the sales position of “Territory Manager II” was not commonly known to exist, nor were the promotions to that position given to whites competitively announced. Furthermore, this position was not listed, so neither Plaintiff Hicks nor other African Americans could have known to apply for it. Campbell’s contends that the position was created to “fairly justify retaining certain employees at an appropriate wage schedule after they had been reassigned.” However, the Commission found that this explanation “is called into question by a number of factors, including the secretiveness with which these actions were handled, efforts to disguise the existence of this position and its quite belated bestowal on [Plaintiff Hicks] and another African American co-worker.”

As a result of Campbell’s discriminatory practices, Plaintiff Hicks, who received only excellent performance reviews over his 24-year tenure with Campbell’s sales force, “saw a steady stream of white co-workers progress through the ranks of Territory Manager, Account Manager, Account Executive, District Manager, Regional Manager and beyond, while he and his African American co-workers remained in entry level Territory Manager positions despite their years of experience and their qualifications.”

The complaint asserts that Campbell’s began requiring or strongly preferring four-year college degrees for all new Territory Managers on the sales force in an effort to justify its discriminatory treatment of African Americans. Campbell’s instituted this requirement without ever conducting any studies to determine if a college degree was a bona fide occupational qualification for this position, or any other position within the career path to higher level positions within its sales force. The Commission concluded that the bachelor’s degree requirement “would have an adverse disparate impact against African American job applicants and/or employees that would not satisfy the business necessity test as a requirement for hiring.”

Furthermore, according to the suit, for those very few African Americans who do advance past entry level positions, there is a “glass ceiling” that prevents them from being considered for higher management positions.

There was a time when Campbell’s hired an African American Director of Human Resources. The Director admitted to Plaintiff Hicks the existence of both a glass ceiling and a “glass wall.” This same Director appointed the company’s first African American Account Executive. Within months, Campbell’s decided to eliminate the Executive’s position and offered the African American individual a position three levels below the Account Executive position. The African American employee resigned from the company. Within three months of his resignation, Campbell’s reinstated the Account Executive position, and hired a white individual.

The lawsuit also charges that African American employees’ compensation is adversely affected by Campbell’s discriminatory actions. According to the complaint, African American sales personnel are not only affected by unfair promotion procedures, but are assigned to smaller accounts in remote locations, negatively impacting their compensation. Furthermore, African American sales employees are allegedly compensated at the lower end of the salary range for their job level. Thus, any percentage of salary merit increase compensates white employees at a higher rate than African American employees. Decisions as to account assignments, salary and merit increases are left to the discretion of the predominantly white supervisors.

Plaintiff Hicks filed the class action suit on behalf of himself and all African Americans employed by Campbell’s in salaried sales positions in the United States at any time after July 7, 2003. The suit seeks an injunction to end Campbell’s discriminatory practices and prevent current and future harm, as well as compensatory and punitive damages for the Plaintiff and the class.

Nascar Driver Faces Discrimination

edjusticecntr — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:47:55 +0000

RB Radio Archives

edjusticecntr — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:36:53 +0000

Take a listen to some recent episodes of Revolutionary Black Radio…

___________________________________________________________

NUMBER OF

DISCRIMINATION

SUITS SOAR

By Jennifer Hicks

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will not go out of business. Charges of racial discrimination and sexual harassment have increased every single decade since Title VII was passed in 1964. The statistics are chilling:

Sexual harassment charges increased 146 percent between 1992 and 2001. They have increased 150,000 percent since 1980. (1)
Pregnancy discrimination charges increased 126 percent between 1992 and 2001. (2)
Sexual discrimination charges increased 112 percent during the same period. (3)
Racial discrimination charges increased 484 percent between the 1980-1989 decade and the 1990-1999 decade. (4)
National origin charges increased 112 percent in the period 1992-2001. (5)

What’s worse is that the above numbers account for only some of the discrimination suits that have been filed Not all complaints go through the EEOC; some are filed independently.

Historical Background

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 precludes any form of employment-related discrimination based on an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Since its enactment, employment-related discrimination suits have climbed more than 100 percent per decade. And, before you think that this statistic merely reflects a litigious society in general, keep in mind that civil case filings in the federal courts between 1990 and 2000 showed only a 20 percent increase.

Why the Increase in Discrimination Suits?

Researchers John Donohue and Peter Siegelman suggest that two reasons exist for this increase in discrimination lawsuits:

the increase in the number of non-whites and women in professional and managerial positions
the increasingly integrated character of the workplace, making it easier to observe unfair practices against a particular group or groups

Certainly each statement has merit and could indeed be perceived as contributing to an increase in awareness of discriminatory practices. In addition, a couple of surveys on racist attitudes show that such attitudes have diminished over time.

But a National Opinion Research Center survey, judged to be more accurate since it used a seven-point scale, concludes “most Americans see most minority groups in a decidedly negative light on a number of important characteristics….[and] ethnic images remain important determinants of inter-group attitudes.”

Combine the above findings with the following:

The number of hate groups in the United States jumped by approximately 10% in the year 2000, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In seven of the ten industries studied by the General Accounting Office, the wage gap between male and female managers widened between 1995 and 2000.
There were 645 bias incidents between September 11 and September 17, 2002. These incidents ranged in severity from racist jokes to assault, arson, and shootings. The victims were often Americans of South Asian or Middle Eastern heritage.
A National Urban League survey of African Americans under age 35 found the single most important problem facing blacks was racism and discrimination.
The Harvard University Civil Rights Project found that 70% of the nation’s black students go to predominantly minority schools; 37% of Latino students attend schools where 90% to 100% of the students are also minorities; white students tend to go to schools where more than 80% of the students are also white
“There is one final reason for forgetting indigenous people. Our crimes against them are too horrible to contemplate… [T]he American nation in essence conducted a two century war against the indigenous people (ethnic cleansing in which blacks also participated) which didn’t end until Wounded Knee. That’s pretty hard to contemplate and mighty expensive to deal with. So the problem is swept under the enormous rug of American fantasy and forgetfulness.” – Roger Wilkins, professor at George Mason University

When taken in context, then, the meteoric rise in employment-related discrimination and harassment suits clearly isn’t just about an increase in the diversity of the workforce.

In fact, it looks increasingly as if racist and misogynist attitudes are on the rise.

Senate Likely to Vote on Sotomayor in August

edjusticecntr — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:23:06 +0000

By NEIL A. LEWIS

The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Judge Sonia Sotomayor completed her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, acknowledging regret for having said that a “wise Latina” judge could decide a case better than a white man while defending her role in a case involving New Haven firefighters in which she was reversed by the Supreme Court.

But over her four days in the witness chair, Judge Sotomayor provided Republicans little ammunition with which to block the Senate from approving her elevation to the Supreme Court, where she would become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.

Senior Republican staff aides said in interviews they expected that at least one and perhaps as many as three of the panel’s seven Republicans might vote to approve the Sotomayor nomination and send it to the full Senate, which is expected to confirm her in the first week in August.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the committee chairman, has scheduled a vote for next Tuesday, but Republicans on the panel have indicated they will ask the vote be delayed a week until July 28.

The aides said they expected Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose questioning of Judge Sotomayor veered between folksy support and wariness, to vote to approve the nomination. They said he could be joined by Senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, John Cornyn of Texas or Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Senators Hatch and Grassley, committee veterans, have generally supported Democratic judicial nominees in the past. Senator Coburn said he was “mighty impressed” with Judge Sotomayor after questioning her.

In 2005, John G. Roberts Jr., who had been nominated to be chief justice by a Republican president, George W. Bush, received three votes from among the eight Democrats on the panel.

One of the aides, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Republicans had for some time given up any hope of derailing the Sotomayor nomination. But the aide said that committee Republicans had taken satisfaction in two of Judge Sotomayor’s concessions at the hearings, which ended in the evening with panels of outside witnesses.

Not only did she back away from and express regret for her “wise Latina” comments, but the official said Republicans were also pleased that she seemed to repudiate President Obama’s formulation that a judge needed to have empathy for those who came before the court.

Before she got up from the witness chair for good, Judge Sotomayor, who sits on the federal appeals court in New York City, was confronted repeatedly by Republican questions about the apparent gulf between her testimony and her past speeches in which she spoke about how personal experiences might influence a judge’s behavior. “Look at my record over the last 17 years as a judge,” she responded regularly.

In eschewing her speeches, Judge Sotomayor gave answers that were reminiscent of Clarence Thomas, who was challenged at his 1991 confirmation hearings about several speeches in which he said that “natural law,” an unwritten moral code, sometimes trumped written law. Justice Thomas said his speeches were philosophical musings, an answer Democrats dismissed but Republicans accepted.

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee, remained Judge Sotomayor’s most relentless inquisitor. In one pointed colloquy, Mr. Sessions challenged her about being part of a three-judge panel that ruled against white and Hispanic New Haven firefighters after the city threw out civil service exam results because not enough members of minorities had achieved scores high enough for promotion.

Mr. Sessions, who was denied a federal district court judgeship 23 years ago over accusations of racial insensitivity, tried to turn the tables on Judge Sotomayor. “Did you fail to show the courage that the attorney general has asked us to show about race?” he asked, referring to comments by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

“Sir, no, I did not show a lack of courage,” she replied. “It was a thorough, complete discussion of the issues.”

Two of the firefighters who lost the case before Judge Sotomayor only to achieve victory last month in a 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling testified against her nomination in the afternoon.

The panel also heard from David Cone, a former major-league pitcher, who said Judge Sotomayor “rescued baseball” with her ruling in 1995 in which she barred team owners from unilaterally doing away with the free agent and salary arbitration systems. In discussing what is perhaps Judge Sotomayor’s most celebrated case, Mr. Cone said, “All of us players, owners and fans are in her debt.”

The National Rifle Association, after days of critical comments about Judge Sotomayor, formally opposed her nomination on Thursday. The group said it did so because of concern over her commitment to the Second Amendment, citing a case in which she took part involving the banning of a martial arts weapon in New York State.

Officials of the gun group said they would not include a senator’s vote on the nomination to rate lawmakers on their fidelity to a pro-gun-rights agenda.

EEOC weighs action to counter age-bias rulings

edjusticecntr — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:58:01 +0000

By SAM HANANEL (AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is considering new rules to protect older workers from job discrimination after a spate of recent Supreme Court decisions made it harder to prove age bias in the workplace. The action comes as age discrimination complaints to the agency, which enforces federal employment discrimination laws, rose 29 percent last year, more than any other type of bias claim.

Legal experts at a commission hearing on Wednesday complained that recent high court rulings have “decimated” the effect of age discrimination laws. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that workers bear the burden of proving age was the key factor in a demotion or layoff. That changed a long-standing interpretation of the law, which called for a worker to show that age was just one factor in the employment decision and then shifted the burden to the employer to prove there was a permissible reason for the action.

Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, president of Workplace Fairness, a nonprofit group that promotes employment rights, told the commission that the court’s decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc. forces older workers to meet a higher standard of proof than employees alleging discrimination on the basis of race or sex. “After Gross, its a whole new ball game and not a level playing field” for older employees, Ventrell-Monsees said.

In another 5-4 ruling last year, the Supreme Court held that Kentucky’s retirement system does not discriminate against older workers, even though the system deprives employees older than 55 of certain benefits. Nancy Dean Edmonds, a senior trial attorney for the EEOC’s Indianapolis office, said the ruling “creates new hurdles” for age discrimination enforcement. Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart Ishimaru speculated that “conscious or unconscious stereotypes” may cause employers to lay off older workers disproportionately during the economic recession. Ishimaru and other commissioners said they would consider drafting regulations to clarify the Supreme Court rulings on how age discrimination laws should be enforced. “I wonder whether the public generally realizes that age discrimination is illegal,” Ishimaru said.

Laurie McCann, an attorney with the AARP, called on congressional lawmakers to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to make clear that it should be enforced in the same manner as age, sex and other discrimination cases. That may well happen.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, hinted last month that lawmakers would take a look at bolstering age discrimination laws. He compared the court’s latest ruling to the 2007 Lilly Ledbetter case that made it harder to sue over past pay discrimination. Congress passed legislation reversing that decision earlier this year.

On the Net:

* Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: http://www.eeoc.gov/