Latest news with #racialharassment
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines appeal from White Texan claiming racial harassment at school
WASHINGTON – A White Texan says he was targeted by classmates and teachers at his predominantly Hispanic school district because of his race, including being called 'Whitey' by a math aide and being asked by a principal if he was listening to Dixie music. In middle school band class in 2018, two students brought up 'the evils of the white race in American history,' Brooks Warden said in his years-long lawsuit. The Supreme Court on June 30 declined to decide if Warden can sue for racial harassment under the Civil Rights Act. More: Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Austin Independent School District said Warden failed to show the alleged hostility was based on race, rather than his political views. 'This case has devolved into a publicity stunt fueled by partisan rhetoric and political opportunism,' lawyers for the school district told the Supreme Court. 'Austin ISD does not condone harassment or bullying of any kind, and it regrets that Brooks had negative experiences with its students and staff members, but this is not a Title VI case.' A federal judge dismissed the complaint. But the Louisiana-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals evenly divided over the issue. One of the appeals judges who sided with Warden said the culture increasingly accepts – it not celebrates – racism against White people. 'Racism is now edgy and exciting—so long as it's against whites,' Circuit Judge James Ho wrote. Warden said the bullying began after he wore a MAGA hat on a middle school field trip in 2017. His lawyers said he should not have to prove that race was the main reason he was targeted instead of just one of the reasons. The school district said Warden never complained that he was mistreated because of his race while he was a student there. That allegation came nearly a year after he sued and after a local judge had dismissed his multiple amended complaints against the school, lawyers for the district said. The court, the lawyers said, should not 'open the proverbial floodgates to civil liability by allowing students to sue their schools for race-based harassment every time they hear a political viewpoint about race that they do not share.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court declines case of White Texan claiming racial harassment
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge finalizes $1.4M Waste Pro racial discrimination lawsuit settlement
This story was originally published on Waste Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Waste Dive newsletter. Waste Pro will pay $1.4 million to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced this week. The suit alleges that Waste Pro failed to intervene when a Black sanitation worker and 25 other employees in Jacksonville, Florida were subjected to what the EEOC described as frequent 'horrific racial slurs and epithets' and other severe harassment due to either their race, their background as Haitian Americans, or both. Some of the employees were also denied use of necessary tools or equipment needed to do their jobs or were singled out to complete harder or less desirable tasks than other workers, the lawsuit alleges. A judge approved the consent decree on June 5, the last step needed to finalize a consent decree that was first proposed in October 2024. EEOC filed the complaint in September 2023. As part of the consent decree, Waste Pro must provide specialized training on race discrimination to supervisors and human resources employees, the decree says. It specifies that Waste Pro CEO Sean Jennings and COO Keith Banasiak must attend the first training session. Waste Pro must also appoint an independent compliance officer, who will oversee the investigation of any race discrimination complaints the company receives at any of its locations throughout Florida, the EEOC said. Waste Pro will have to establish a centralized discrimination complaint tracking system and provide the EEOC with biannual reports noting any discriminatory conduct at its locations and describing what corrective measures were taken. Further, the company will need to create a written seniority system that assigns collection trucks and routes 'on a race-neutral basis.' The suit alleged that certain managers made 'an already difficult job – picking up Jacksonville residents' trash and recycling – intolerable by assigning Black employees to worse routes and trucks while forcing them to endure severe racial harassment,' EEOC said in a statement. 'This case underscores the urgent need for the EEOC's ongoing efforts to eliminate racism in the waste management industry,' said EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Kristen M. Foslid in a statement. 'The EEOC will continue to use all its tools — including vigorous enforcement and litigation where necessary — to confront employers who tolerate race discrimination in their workplaces and hold them accountable.' Tracy Meehan, Waste Pro's corporate communications director, said in an emailed statement that the company has 'always been committed to fostering a productive and healthy work environment for its employees that is free of harassment and discrimination' and has already implemented changes to its manager training program and its communications to employees about company anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies. 'This case stems from events alleged to have occurred in 2022, and while Waste Pro did not find evidence of intentional wrongdoing, a settlement was reached to avoid lengthy litigation and refocus on our commitment to our employees and the people we serve,' Meehan said. The EEOC complaint originally centered on an employee who reported harassment at a Waste Pro location in Jacksonville, saying he and another employee were regularly told to 'go back to Haiti' and endured other harassment on a regular basis. At one point, the worker said someone left a stuffed monkey on his desk as a reference to a racial epithet, the EEOC said. The suit alleges that the employee reported the harassment several times, but supervisors took no corrective action on the complaints until several months later, when HR called a meeting. After that meeting, according to the lawsuit, workers retaliated against that employee by hiding or locking away his equipment and leaving him the most difficult assignments. The case grew to include dozens of other workers who the EEOC said were harmed by similar ongoing racial discrimination. 'This case began when one worker bravely spoke out against race discrimination and filed a charge with the EEOC. Because of his actions, the company was forced to undergo significant change,' EEOC trial attorney Austin Case said in a statement. The original employee's decision to file the charge also helped his other coworkers 'receive some measure of justice for the discrimination they endured,' he said. Recommended Reading GFL, Waste Pro to pay millions for settlements of EEOC race and sex discrimination lawsuits Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Daily Mail
17-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Black In-N-Out Burger worker 'racially harassed' by bosses he claims asked him to remove body hair
A black In-N-Out Burger employee was allegedly racially harassed by his bosses after he refused to trim his sideburns, according to a new lawsuit. Elijah Obeng, 21, claims he suffered severe emotional distress and was wrongfully terminated after he was targeted by management over the popular burger chain's dress code, the lawsuit, filed Thursday with the Compton Superior Court, read. Obeng, who worked at the Compton location for nearly four years after graduating high school, was soon informed he had to change his hairstyle as it started to grow. The chain requires all staff to wear company-issued hats with their hair tucked in. Males employees must also be clean-shaven, the lawsuit detailed. After he was told he had to alter his hairstyle, Obeng started wearing braids, but management still found an issue with his sideburns - something that is part of his 'racial and cultural identity,' per the lawsuit. Shortly after his boss started to complain about his facial hair, which Obeng 'found humiliating and discriminatory,' he quickly realized a drastic change in his work environment. According to the legal filing, Obeng started 'experiencing different treatment' afterward, including being reprimanded for not attending meetings and for 'minor infractions.' His coworkers 'were not disciplined for similar conduct,' it added. Tensions soon rose to a boiling point when Obeng clocked in for his shift on May 25, 2024 as his supervisor asked him to go home and shave his sideburns before returning back to the fast food restaurant, the lawsuit stated. At the time, Obeng was told to do so by his boss 'in full view of his coworkers,' leading him to 'feel publicly humiliated,' the legal document said. Instead of returning back to his shift that day, Obeng texted his supervisor, letting them know he would clock back in for his next scheduled shift because he believed the particular incident was 'a discriminatory and unnecessary grooming requirement,' according to the lawsuit. Just a few days after, Obeng was fired from the job 'due to his protected traits and in violation of public policy,' the lawsuit read. Despite his claim, In-N-Out said Obeng was actually let go because of 'prior write-ups,' not because of 'his natural hair' and the company's 'resistance to discriminatory policies,' it continued. The suit said the burger chain allegedly violated the CROWN act, also known as Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair. In California employers are prohibited from discriminating against staffers based on their hair texture or style, per the CROWN act. 'This policy disproportionately burdened Black employees whose natural hair may not conform to such grooming standards,' the lawsuit read. Because of what he allegedly experienced at the hands of his former employers, Obeng has gone on to suffer 'anxiety, humiliation, and loss of dignity,' per the lawsuit. He has demanded that In-N-Out pay $1 million in compensatory damages, $2 million for emotional distress and $200,000 for back or front pay. He has also demanded that punitive damages be proven at a trial, the lawsuit said. Daily Mail contacted Obeng, his lawyer and In-N-Out for comment. The term sideburns was first coined by Ambrose Burnside, a Union general who sported the unique facial hair. Sideburns really became popular in the 1960-1970s as hippies and rock stars hopped on the trend. For black men specifically, facial hair is more than a fashion statement as it is symbolizes cultural legacy and identity. Throughout the 60s and 70s sideburns, afros and beards became popular as black men sported them to express their pride and resistance. Key figures, including human rights activist Malcom X and Black Power Movement leader Stockely Carmichael, often influenced grooming choices for men in the black community. From the 70s to the 80s, sideburns became part of a larger story as they became tied to soul, disco and funk performers, including Marvin Gaye, Isaac Hayes and Curtis Mayfield.
The Independent
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Jewish protester's fury after being charged with racial harassment over anti-Hezbollah placard
A Jewish protester has hit out after he faced charges of racially aggravated harassment, which were later dropped, for holding a placard depicting a Hezbollah leader. The British man says he was arrested for holding the sign featuring a drawing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah holding a pager to his face with the words 'beep, beep, beep'. The cartoon, which he describes as 'political satire', referred to a September 2024 Israeli attack nicknamed Operation Grim Beeper, in which pagers and walkie-talkies used by the Lebanese group, a proscribed terror organisation in the UK, detonated simultaneously, killing dozens of people and injuring thousands. The protester's home was raided and he was held overnight at a police station after he held the sign, which he says did not belong to him, at a Stop the Hate counter-protest against a pro-Palestine march in Swiss Cottage, north-west London, on 20 September last year. He was later charged under the Public Order Act of causing racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress by words or writing. But eight months later the charges were dropped, he said, with Crown Prosecution Service saying there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. The protester, who has not been named, described the Metropolitan Police as 'completely out of their depth' in their policing of regular pro-Palestine marches since the 7 October attacks as he relived his experience in an interview with The Telegraph. Footage of his police interview, published by the outlet, show an officer asking him: 'Do you think that showing this image to persons protesting who are clearly pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel that by doing so would stir up racial hatred further than it is already?' The man's lawyer responded: 'Are you saying that there were pro-Hezbollah people there? Because it is a proscribed terrorist organisation.' The Met Police have said the officer who interviewed the protester 'clearly misspoke' when she described the pro-Palestine demonstrators as 'pro-Hezbollah'. The counter protester said: 'It beggars belief that police could think that this placard may be offensive to supporters of Hezbollah. 'If there are Hezbollah supporters at these marches, then why weren't charges brought against them for terrorist offences, rather than me being charged for holding a sign that can only be construed as political satire? 'The Met Police are still completely out of their depth when it comes to policing the anti-Israel hate marches we've seen on our streets week in, week out since the 7 October attacks.' Responding to the incident, shadow home secretary Chris Philp described it as an example of 'two tier policing'. 'In recent times, the police have failed to act when confronted with protesters calling for jihad and intifada in London,' he told The Telegraph. "Yet this man was apparently arrested because he might have offended supporters of a banned terrorist organisation.' He added: "The police sometimes turn a blind eye when applying the law might be diffcult yet over-police at other times. The law should be applied equally to all, robustly and without fear or favour." A spokesperson for the Met Police said: 'A man was charged following a careful consideration of the evidence. We will reflect on the CPS decision not to proceed with the case, applying any learning to future investigations. 'The officer who interviewed the man clearly misspoke when she described those in the protest as pro-Hezbollah instead of pro-Palestinian.' The spokesperson added: 'We take support for proscribed organisations very seriously. 'Since October 2023, we have made 28 arrests under the Terrorism Act for offences at protests, including wearing clothing or displaying symbols that indicated support for such groups, including Hezbollah. This is in addition to the hundreds of arrests made for other offences.' A spokesperson from the Crown Prosecution Service said: 'We take any allegations of criminality associated with protests seriously, and balance this against the right to peaceful and lawful protests when determining if an offence has been committed. 'We recognise the need for all communities to have confidence in our prosecutorial decisions and we will continue to work with those affected by the ongoing protests.'
