You could also receive payment for expenses that arose because of the discrimination, such as medical bills or the costs of looking for a new job. In some cases, you may receive payment for your emotional distress.
In addition, the company will be ordered to stop its illegal discrimination and to prevent discrimination from happening again in the company in the future.
There is much to be gained by bringing a lawsuit for racial discrimination. The hard part, though, is proving the discrimination, especially when the people discriminating against you tried to hide what they were doing. An experienced employment discrimination lawyer knows how to find and gather the necessary evidence and use it to make a strong and convincing case.
Sometimes, there is direct evidence of discrimination. If you had this kind of evidence, your case would likely be easy to prove. Direct evidence, though, is rare. He or she must also show that he or she is qualified for the position, and the employer must have engaged in an adverse employment action against the worker or applicant.
Finally, the employee will need to show that there is a reasonable inference that the employer engaged in adverse actions based on racially discriminatory practices or beliefs. Once an employee establishes a prima facie case, the employer will then be allowed to present evidence to disprove that discrimination occurred.
In most cases, the employer will argue that the adverse job action was based on something other than discrimination. While racial discrimination has been illegal for decades, it continues to be a problem.
If you believe that your employer has engaged in illegal discrimination against you based on your race, you should talk to the attorneys at Swartz Swidler. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at Skip to content. What is racial discrimination? Some examples include the following: A retail store employs white workers in sales positions while hiring Latino workers only for restocking jobs. Sandoval , U.
This section provides an overview of the types of evidence necessary to prove intentional discrimination under Title VI. Those standards may not always apply to agency investigations, which often follow a non-adversarial model in which the agency collects all relevant evidence and then determines whether the evidence establishes discrimination. The burden-shifting framework may nevertheless serve as a useful paradigm for organizing and analyzing the evidence.
Investigating agencies can look to case law for guidance on proving intentional discrimination, but are not bound by case law concerning burden shifting between plaintiff and defendant that is, as between a complainant and a recipient. An agency need not use the same sequential process as courts, where a plaintiff first offers prima facie evidence and the defendant then offers rebuttal evidence. Rather, an agency has discretion to gather and evaluate all relevant evidence as part of its initial investigation, or may choose to make a preliminary prima facie finding then require recipients to articulate defenses.
Proving Intentional Discrimination. Courts have developed a number of analytical frameworks for assessing intent claims. Bollinger , U. Bakke , U. Generally, intentional discrimination occurs when the recipient acted, at least in part, because of the actual or perceived race, color, or national origin of the alleged victims of discriminatory treatment. Doe ex rel. Doe v. Lower Merion Sch. Feeney , U. Some assume that the intentional use of race should be carefully scrutinized only when the intent is to harm a group or an individual defined by race, color, or national origin.
That is not true: the Supreme Court in City of Richmond v. Croson Co. Pena , U. City of Dothan, F. This section discusses a variety of methods of proof to consider when evaluating recipient behavior to determine whether it meets the legal standard for intentional discrimination. A method of proof—or analytical framework—is an established way of organizing the evidence in an investigation or lawsuit in order to show why that evidence amounts to intentional discrimination.
Those methods are as follows:. Methods that focus on direct evidence. Methods that focus on circumstantial evidence. The McDonnell-Douglas framework. The framework is most commonly applied in cases alleging discrimination in individual instances.
Agencies should consider using this method for investigations involving the selection of individuals, such as for program participation, benefits, or services, particularly where the recipient provides a nondiscriminatory explanation for its decision.
This method is most likely to be helpful where the complaint is about one or a few individuals, and involves easily identifiable similarly situated individuals not in the protected class. See Section B.
More than one type of analysis may apply to facts disclosed in an investigation or trial to determine race-based intent. Agencies and plaintiffs can use them individually or together and may combine both direct and circumstantial evidence.
See Washington v. Davis, U. Regardless of the method or methods of proof ultimately employed, the central question remains whether the recipient acted intentionally based on race, color, or national origin.
In evaluating the totality of relevant facts, courts and federal funding agencies look to either direct or circumstantial evidence to establish whether a recipient engaged in intentional discrimination. Often, the available proof consists of a combination of these different kinds of evidence, and therefore more than one method of proof may be appropriate. The box below cross-references the major types of evidence with the related methods of proof discussed in this section.
Direct evidence. Direct evidence often involves a statement from a decision-maker that expresses a discriminatory motive. Direct evidence can also include express or admitted classifications, in which a recipient explicitly distributes benefits or burdens based on race, color, or national origin. Other than instances where a recipient uses race expressly to achieve diversity or implement a race-based remedy for past discrimination, finding direct evidence is rare; most recipients are circumspect enough to avoid making overtly discriminatory statements.
As a result, most Title VI litigation and administrative investigations focus on circumstantial evidence. See methods of proof discussed in Section B. Circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect evidence, requires the fact finder to make an inference or presumption.
Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch. Phillips Bros. See methods of proof discussed in Sections B. Statistical evidence. Statistical evidence can often be critical in a case where the exercise of race-based motive is alleged.
A plaintiff or agency investigation can use statistics in several ways to establish a claim of intentional discrimination. For example, statistics can be used show that an ostensibly race-neutral action actually causes a pattern of discrimination, a racially disproportionate impact, or foreseeably discriminatory results. While statistical evidence is not required to demonstrate intentional discrimination, plaintiffs often successfully use statistics to support, along with other types of evidence, a claim of intentional discrimination.
Finally, it is important for agencies to remember that even if a recipient is found to have engaged in the intentional consideration of race, color, or national origin, this is not the end of the inquiry.
Some uses of race are permissible. This is discussed more extensively beginning at page Title VI case law has traditionally borrowed jurisprudence from other civil rights laws with a similar structure and purpose. Importantly, the analyses under these civil rights laws are not always the same, but this discussion identifies principles that are applicable to Title VI. Direct Evidence of Discriminatory Intent. Seafoods Co.
Occasionally, a recipient official admits to having considered race during the decisional process as a basis for its action. In other instances, a recipient explicitly conditions the receipt of benefits or services on the race, color, or national origin of the beneficiary, or explicitly directs action be taken based on race, color, or national origin. Socorro Indep. Express classifications. The Equal Protection Clause requires strict scrutiny of any government policy or practice that classifies individuals based on race, color, or national origin.
Parents Involved in Cmty. Seattle Sch. Bollinger, U. Parents Involved , U. Such classifications demonstrate a discriminatory purpose as a matter of law. See Miller v. Johnson, U. Peters, F. City of New York, F. Motors Corp. Orem City Corp.
Parker Grp. Implement Workers of Am. Johnson Controls, Inc. Even benign motivations for racial classifications are presumptively invalid and trigger strict scrutiny in Equal Protection Clause and Title VI cases.
Adarand, U. Other forms of direct evidence of intent. Not all unfair or negative conduct is discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The Tribunal does not have the power to hear cases that involve general claims of unfairness not tied to Code discrimination. Discrimination usually begins with a distinction or difference in how a person is treated that has a negative impact on that person.
For the negative differential treatment to be discriminatory, it must be tied to one of the protected personal characteristics set out in the Code. Even where a person is treated the same way as others, discrimination can occur if the same treatment has a different and negative impact on the person because of a protected personal characteristic such as disability.
The personal characteristics protected under the Code are listed below. The Code prohibits negative treatment based on any of the following:. The Code also prohibits harassment based on a personal characteristic including sex, race or sexual orientation. To prove discrimination, you must show that there is a connection also referred to as the nexus or the link between negative treatment that you experienced and one of the personal characteristics or prohibited grounds of discrimination listed in the the Code.
Put another way, to prove discrimination, you need to show at your hearing that you were subjected to negative treatment because of your gender, place of origin, family status or any one of the Code- protected personal characteristics. Even if the discriminatory ground e. Answering the following questions can help you determine if you have experienced discrimination that can be proved in a hearing before the Tribunal. To make this clearer, we have used the example of disability but the same questions can be asked in relation to any of the personal characteristics listed in the Code.
In many discrimination cases, there is no dispute about questions 1 to 4 above. The last question is often the most difficult factual issue for the Tribunal to determine: were you treated negatively because of your disability or any other personal characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.
Before you file a discrimination claim, you should consider whether the Tribunal will be able to answer these five questions in your favour. This Information Sheet will help you understand some issues that could arise in answering the questions.
An applicant may be treated negatively for reasons unconnected to a Code- protected personal characteristic. For example, if an employee who identifies as Arab-Canadian is terminated from her employment, she will be able to show at a hearing that she is a person with a personal characteristic her race that is listed in the Code as a prohibited ground of discrimination. This fact will likely be undisputed at the hearing, which means that the employer is unlikely to take a position that the employee is not a racialized person.
And if she is the only employee who is fired at that time, she will be able to prove that she was treated differently from other employees and that the impact ie unemployment was negative. However, this will not be enough to prove discrimination at the hearing. The connection between the termination and her race also must be proved. The applicant must bring factual evidence to the hearing to demonstrate the connection between her race and the termination. This would include her own testimony at the hearing about how she was treated as an employee.
Not all differences in treatment are negative and not all negative treatment is discriminatory. Sometimes the person alleged to have discriminated usually an employer, landlord or business will question whether the applicant was really harmed by being treated differently. To find discrimination, the Tribunal has to decide whether the conduct or treatment was truly negative in its impact. Even when a person is treated differently, the Tribunal can find that the different treatment did not have a negative impact on the person of a kind that would amount to discrimination under the Code.
An example might be a situation where an employed Canadian-born white man is not allowed to register in a community program designed to help racialized immigrant women who are isolated at home.
In this case, the man is treated differently, because of his gender, race and place of origin, than a woman who qualifies for the program. However, the difference in treatment would not be found to be discriminatory. The man is not really harmed by not being allowed into a program that is designed to help individuals who are at a disadvantage by virtue of their recent immigrant status, gender and race.
Simply put, the Code is designed to help disadvantaged individuals and groups, not those who enjoy a relative advantage. The Code does not aim to eliminate all differences in treatment. The purpose of the Code is to address differences or distinctions that have the effect of perpetuating disadvantage or promoting negative stereotypes about individuals who have a protected personal characteristic under the Code.
In deciding a case, the Tribunal relies on the evidence presented by both sides at the hearing.
0コメント