NELA

Empowering Workers' Rights Attorneys

Events

Race Discrimination

Harris v. FedEx

On July 21, NELA and the National Institute for Workers’ Rights, along with the Texas Employment Lawyers Association (TELA), filed an amicus brief in the 5th Circuit on behalf of the appellee in Harris v. FedEx. This case is FedEx’s appeal of a significant verdict against it under Section 1981 for retaliating against Ms. Harris when she complained about racial discrimination at work. Harris’ verdict was obtained by NELA members Brian P. Sanford and Elizabeth (B.B.) Sanford (The Sanford Firm, TX).

The amicus brief focused on FedEx’s claim that the court should have enforced the contractually-shortened statute of limitations contained in FedEx’s standard job application, which says that any claim needs to be brought within six months. Our brief argued that it was unreasonable to shorten Section 1981’s statute of limitations from four years, as specified in the statute, to just six months. In making this argument, we pointed both to Texas’ public policy interests in keeping access to courts generally and on contract claims specifically, and also explained that the practicalities of litigation and finding counsel meant that six months was far too short a time for prospective plaintiffs like Harris. Many thanks to NELA/TELA member Walt … Read More

DOWNLOAD

NELA Amicus Brief: Jones v. City of Boston (1st Cir.)

On March 11, 2016, NELA joined the Equal Justice Society, Justice at Work, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice in filing an amicus brief in support of the Plaintiff-Appellants in Jones v. City of Boston, currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The amicus brief provides the court with important historical context regarding the development of the law governing disparate impact, and its importance to addressing systemic discrimination in professions, like law enforcement, with deeply-imbedded cultures of exclusion that would otherwise be practically impossible to remedy.

After providing that background, the brief turns to the problems raised by the manner in which the district court evaluated both “business necessity” and “availability of a less-discriminatory alternative” in the context of resolving a motion for summary judgment. As the brief argues, the district court applied a “watered-down” version of the business necessity requirement to the Department and a heightened version of the less discriminatory alternative standard to the plaintiffs. This is particularly problematic at the summary judgment stage, because doing so necessitated drawing a number of inferences against the plaintiffs, weighing the evidence inappropriately, and … Read More

DOWNLOAD

NELA Amicus Brief: Howe v. Akron (6th Circuit)

NELA’s amicus brief joins with the plaintiffs and their counsel in urging the Sixth Circuit to adopt the majority view of Circuits around the country that court-initiated sanctions under section 1927 requires a finding of bad faith by the trial court. No such finding was made in this case. Different panels of the Sixth Circuit have applied varying standards concerning section 1927 sanctions. Nevertheless, even using the lowest standard applied by certain panels of the Sixth Circuit (which requires only “something more than negligence or incompetence”), plaintiffs counsel’s conduct would not have warranted sanctions. Counsel, instead, undertook the natural and proper steps of complying with a change in the court’s orders. NELA’s amicus also argues that imposition of this sanction has an undue chilling effect on civil rights advocacy, violates due process, and raises a concern about the unusually high incidence of controversial sanctions imposed by this particular trial court judge.

Brief writers: Richard R. Renner; Bennet D. Zurofsky… Read More

DOWNLOAD

NELA Amicus Brief: Vance v. Ball State University (U.S. Supreme Court)

On September 5, 2012, NELA, joined by AARP, filed an amicus brief supporting Petitioner Maetta Vance in Vance v. Ball State University, currently pending in the United States Supreme Court. Our brief was drafted by Professor Michael L. Foreman of the Penn State University Dickinson School of Law, with support from his students in the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic. The issue in this case concerns the appropriate definition of “supervisor” under Title VII.

Ms. Vance was the only African-American employee in her department, which provided banquet and catering services to the Ball State University campus community. She alleged numerous instances of fairly egregious, racially-motivated conduct in support of her hostile work environment and retaliation claims. Some of this conduct was engaged in by employees who arguably directed at least some of her day-to-day work activities. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Diane Wood, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant. In so doing, Judge Wood held that the definition of supervisor is limited to those who possess the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline an employee.”

By contrast, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) developed guidance in response to the … Read More

DOWNLOAD