Also read: DiversityInc.com Career Center, civil rights, discrimination, Bob Gregg, lawsuits, Ricci, diversity-training webinar
Bob Gregg, partner in Boardman Law Firm, shares his roundup of diversity-related legal issues. He can be reached at rgregg@boardmanlawfirm.com.
Baltimore settles with 15 Black police officers in discrimination case. The City of Baltimore recently settled Hopson v. Baltimore, a lawsuit brought under Title VII by a class of Black police officers who alleged racial discrimination in discipline, harassment and retaliation against those who complained. The complaint, for example, claimed that Black and white officers would commit similar disciplinary offenses, but the Black officers received harsher discipline on a regular basis. In addition to monetary relief, the $4.5-million settlement includes implementing leadership-training courses for sergeants and lieutenants, hiring an outside consultant to monitor the police-department practices, training on the disciplinary process and follow-up reporting to the court for up to five years (D. Md., 2009).
To learn more about effective diversity-management training, check out this four-part exclusive series on DiversityIncBestPractices.com/training.
New York City firefighter test found to be discriminatory. On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's Ricci v. DeStefano decision reinstating the City of New Haven firefighter tests, a Federal District Court has found the City of New York's firefighter entrance exam to have a discriminatory adverse impact and invalidity. This may set up the next major appellate case on race discrimination in testing. In United States v. New York City, the court found that the New York firefighter test had an adverse impact against Black and Latino applicants, resulting in the hiring of only 3.2 percent Black and 8.5 percent Latino candidates. Among the city's 8,998 firefighters, only 303 were Black and 605 Latino. The court went beyond the initial adverse-impact evidence: It cited the recent Ricci decision and claimed to have used the new Ricci standard by proceeding to assess the validity of the test before reaching a conclusion. The District Court's conclusion was that the test was not validated; it found an absence of evidence to show a relationship between the test questions and the tasks and abilities necessary for firefighting. The evidence, it states, "paints an extremely troubling picture of the test construction process and the content the City sought to test." The test, it continues, was "riddled with serious defects, and the facts [the city] presented patently failed to satisfy the demands of test validation" (E.D. NY, 2009).
For in-depth information on diversity-recruiting best practices of people from traditionally underrepresented groups, go to www.DiversityincBestPractices.com/recruitment.
Public safety versus invasion of privacy in drug testing. A federal court has upheld the Department of Transportation requirement for direct observation of drug tests for those involved in trucking, pipeline or hazardous-materials work. In BNSF Railway Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, several unions and some employers challenged the rule as invasion of privacy and unreasonable search and seizure under the Constitution. But the court found that the Department of Transportation had a "compelling interest" in public safety, which overbalanced the individual interests of those being tested (D.C. DC, 2009).
Court orders university to continue employment of Russian scientist while discrimination case proceeds. A Russian biologist performed research work under an H1B visa. She was informed by her supervisor (of Korean origin) that her work would end because of a lack of funding. But two Korean researchers were then hired to do the same work. The biologist filed a Title VII discrimination suit. Normally, a plaintiff in a discharge suit suffers the termination and continues the suit after the end of employment, seeking back pay and reinstatement. However, in this instance, the scientist's right to be in the United States was tied to the employment. The moment work ceased, the H1B visa would become invalid and she would have to leave the country; this would, in practicality, also end her ability to pursue the case. In Karakozova v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, the court recognized this as an "irreparable harm" situation and ordered the university to continue her employment for a period of time to allow the case to proceed. In doing so, it found the interest of a fair legal process outweighed any moderate harm to the university; it also found a likelihood that the plaintiff would prevail in the case based on the preliminary evidence presented (W.D. Penn., 2009).
