Justice Department settles racial discrimination case against Meridian school district

Feds alleged that black students faced stiffer punishment than white students for similar offenses
 The U.S. Justice Department said Friday that it has reached a deal with a Mississippi school district to end discriminatory disciplinary practices in which black students face harsher punishment than whites for similar misbehavior.
The agreement comes after a lengthy federal investigation that found that black public school students in Meridian are five times more likely than whites to be suspended from classes and often got longer suspensions for comparable misbehavior.
Jocelyn Samuels, a deputy assistant attorney general, said during a news conference Friday that black students in the Meridian Public School District routinely receive more severe punishments than whites in most categories of misbehavior other than weapons and drugs violations. She commended the district for its cooperation with the Justice Department.
About 86 percent of Meridian’s 6,000 public school students are black. The district’s superintendent, Alvin Taylor, is black and there is a mixture of white and black principals, Samuels said.
Taylor did not immediately respond to a message Friday.
Samuels stressed that disciplinary problems and disparities are not unique to the city of Meridian or Mississippi and she hopes the agreement can be a guide to other school districts. Similar problems are most likely to happen at schools that have implemented harsh disciplinary policies, she said.
“Unfortunately, today across the country, students are being pulled off the path to success by harsh disciplinary policies that are excluding students from school for minor disciplinary infractions,” she said. “Students are being suspended, expelled or even arrested for school uniform violations, talking back to teachers or laughing in class.”
The agreement, known as a consent decree, calls for the district to end discriminatory punishment practices with the provisions that should be fully implemented by the end of the 2016-2017 school year.
The agreement must be approved by a federal judge in Mississippi. Among the provisions in the 44-page agreement, the school would have to limit the use of disciplinary action that removes students from classrooms and ensure that consequences are fair and consistent for all students.
The agreement would amend a consent decree enforced by the U.S. as part of 1965 desegregation lawsuit against the district.
Samuels said there about 200 similar longstanding lawsuits involving districts around the country and the Justice Department reviews their disciplinary policies and practices.
The agreement is separate from a Justice Department lawsuit against the city of Meridian, Lauderdale County, the two Lauderdale County Youth Court judges and the Mississippi Department of Human Services.
That lawsuit, which is pending in U.S. District Court in Jackson, alleges that there was “school-to-prison pipeline” in Meridian that locks up students for minor infractions like flatulence or wearing the wrong color socks.
The lawsuit claims Meridian police routinely arrested students without determining whether there was probable cause when a school wanted to press charges, and the students were routinely jailed.
Once arrested, the students end up on probation, sometimes without proper legal representation, according to the lawsuit. If the students are on probation, future school problems could be considered a violation that requires them to serve the suspension incarcerated in the juvenile detention center.
That means students can be incarcerated for “dress code infractions such as wearing the wrong color socks or undershirt, or for having shirts untucked; tardies; flatulence in class; using vulgar language; yelling at teachers; and going to the bathroom or leaving the classroom without permission.”

For More Information Contact us at:
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Compton v. Superior Court (American Management Services, LLC)

U.S. Supreme Court ruling in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), which held that Federal Arbitration Act preempts California public policy disfavoring enforcement of agreements barring class-wide arbitration, does not preempt policy against enforcement of agreements that are so one-sided as to be unconscionable. Agreement compelling arbitration, and barring classwide or joint arbitration proceedings absent consent of all parties, was one-sided and unconscionable where it carved out unfair competition and trade secrets claims, and imposed a shortened limitations period for arbitrable claims while allowing carved-out claims--which were subject to a three- or four-year limitations period--to be litigated.
     Compton v. Superior Court (American Management Services, LLC) - filed March 19, 2013, Second District, Div. Eight
     Cite as B236669

For More Information Contact us at:
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck and Co

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification of class action by employee of large retailer, which allegedly violated California's wage and hour laws, including those governing overtime pay and rest and meal breaks, with respect to managers and assistant managers, on ground that plaintiff’s theory of liability — i.e., that defendant acted in a uniform manner toward the proposed class members, resulting in their widespread misclassification as exempt employees — is not amenable to proof on a classwide basis.
     Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. - filed March 20, 2013, Fourth District, Div. One
     Cite as D061055

For More Information Contact us at:
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Tibble v. Edison International

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s six-year statute of limitations, district court correctly measured the timeliness of claims alleging imprudence in plan design from when the decision to include those investments in the plan was initially made. To extent that beneficiaries’ claims hinged on infirmities in the selection process for investments, mere notification that retail funds were in the plan menu fell short of providing "actual knowledge of the breach or violation," so the six-year statute, not the three-year limitation of Sec. 413(2), applied. Department of Labor interpretation limiting scope of ERISA Sec. 404(c)--a safe harbor that can apply to a pension plan that "provides for individual accounts and permits a participant or beneficiary to exercise control over the assets in his account"--as applying only when the breach or loss is the "direct and necessary result" of the action by the beneficiary is entitled to judicial deference. Revenue sharing between mutual funds and administrative service provider did not violate ERISA where such sharing was permitted under a reasonable interpretation of plan.
     Tibble v. Edison International - filed March 21, 2013
     Cite as 10-56406

For More Information Contact us at:
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Forsyth, Ga., Pays in Employment Discrimination Suit

The Telegraph

AMY LEIGH WOMACK

A former Forsyth Electrical Department lineman will receive $160,000 as part of a settlement with the city of Forsyth in a federal employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.
Windell Rutherford started work with the city in 1998 and was promoted to lead lineman in 2002.
He became disabled after an on-the job injury in June 2006.
In December 2006, Rutherford was instructed to come back to work, but the city refused to return him to his job as lead lineman when he asked for accommodations that would have allowed him to do the job, according to the lawsuit filed last August in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Rutherford contended the electrical superintendant twice said he didn’t want him in his department. Once, he said it was because of Rutherford’s injury and disability. A second time he said it was because “all linemen are white,” according to the lawsuit. Rutherford is black.
Initially, Rutherford was placed in a light duty position in the Public Works Department without a pay cut.
Rutherford alleged the Public Works director and city administrator tried to force him to sign a form in April 2010 saying he would accept a demotion to Public Works clerk and a pay cut of more than 50 percent.
The city had allowed a white lineman to stay on the job with medical restrictions. Rutherford accepted the demotion in lieu of being fired, according to the lawsuit.
He applied for a transfer to an open lineman position later that year, but the job was given to two less qualified, non-disabled white men, Rutherford contended.
In May 2012, raises were proposed for Rutherford and three other employees. His raise was not approved because he had filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to the court filing.
Rutherford initially sought to be reinstated to his lead lineman job and $22.50-per-hour salary or damages for future lost wages and benefits. He also sought other monetary damages.
Forsyth and Rutherford settled the case March 5, according to court records.
City Attorney Bobby Melton said Rutherford will be placed in an inventory clerk position. He will be reimbursed for his portion of mediation expenses, in addition to the $160,000.
Rutherford’s Atlanta lawyer declined comment Tuesday, saying the settlement was confidential.

For More Information Contact us at:
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2013/03/19/2402986/forsyth-settles-with-employee.html#storylink=cpy

 

Ogundare v. Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement

Debarment decisions of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which prohibit a contractor from bidding on public construction contracts for a specified period of time as a sanction for failure to pay prevailing wages with intent to defraud, do not implicate a vested right and are judicially reviewed under the substantial evidence test. Unexplained discrepancy between employee’s testimony--that he was paid $15 per hour for 61 hours as confirmed by his weekly paycheck--and the certified payroll records for that same week--showing that he was paid prevailing wages of $36.10 per hour and only worked 25 hours that week--constituted substantial evidence his employer failed to pay prevailing wages with intent to defraud.
     Ogundare v. Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement - filed February 27, 2013, publication ordered March 18, 2013, Fifth District
     Cite as F061162

For More Information Contact us at:
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Richardson v. City and County of San Francisco

Government Code Sec. 3304(d)(2)(A), a provision of the Public Safety Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights Act tolling the limitations period for the bringing of disciplinary action when the officer is under criminal investigation, does not require that any such investigation be "active and actual," so tolling continued between date investigating agency advised prosecutors of its findings and date of decision not to prosecute. Exclusionary rule does not apply to police disciplinary proceedings under the Bill of Rights Act. Officer was properly terminated for "un-officerlike conduct," including lack of cooperation with police search of her home, regardless of the legality of the search. City attorney’s office, which served as legal adviser to the police commission that terminated officer’s employment and as defense counsel in officer’s suit against city, did not have a disqualifying conflict of interest where substantial evidence, set forth in declaration by the commission legal adviser, established that the legal adviser had no contact regarding officer with the attorneys defending the lawsuit.

 Richardson v. City and County of San Francisco (City and County of San Francisco) - filed February 13, 2013, publication ordered March 15, 2013, First District, Div. Two
     Cite as A133300

For More Information Contact us at:
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/