REAL PEOPLE HURT BY THE ROLLBACK OF CIVIL RIGHTS The children's advocates believed that they could enforce their rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, a law intended to protect foster children that establishes requirements that states must meet in order to receive federal funding for child welfare. But a federal court in Florida refused to try the case based on a number of technicalities. Most critically, the court ruled that the federal law governing adoptions could not be enforced by a lawsuit brought by the children. Even though there was a law that had been created to protect them, they were left without a way to enforce it. Workers lose key pay discrimination rights For almost 20 years, Lilly Ledbetter worked hard for Goodyear. But one day she received an anonymous letter that said for years Lilly had received consistently and significantly less pay than her male co-workers doing the same job. Lilly was horrified, and took her case to court. And she won in a trial by jury. The jury said that Goodyear had to make up for the unfair treatment and that the company violated federal civil rights laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on a person's sex. Lilly was awarded back pay and damages. But Goodyear appealed, and the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. In May 2006, the Court ruled against Lilly. It said she couldn't sue because she hadn't filed a complaint within 180 days of Goodyear's decision to pay her less than the men -- even though Lilly had no way of knowing the company was paying her less until she got an anonymous tip many years later. She lost by one vote at the Supreme Court. The Court's ruling will workers across the country. This decision sets a new precedent and makes it easier for companies to discriminate. The result: thousands of workers may have no legal recourse when they are treated unfairly based on sex, race, religion or nationality. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007) Rosalind Smith worked as an administrative assistant at PSI Services II Inc. Over the course of three years, she was repeatedly harassed by a co-worker. His egregious and offensive behavior included propositioning her for one night stands, asking her whether her fiancé sexually satisfied her, making vulgar and sexually suggestive comments about her body, grabbing and peering down her blouse, ogling her breasts, and licking his lips and gyrating against her from behind. When Ms. Smith complained to a supervisor about her co-worker's behavior, she was offered the alternative of accepting a demotion or a permanent layoff. Ms. Smith took her employer to court in an attempt to enforce her civil rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was originally passed to prohibit employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. She was denied the right to go to court, however, because her employment contract had been modified without her knowledge to say that she couldn't go to court if her civil rights were violated. She had to take her claims to an "impartial" referee through a process called arbitration. The arbitrator who heard Ms. Smith's case decided that her co-worker's conduct was highly offensive, but that the harassment was not "pervasive and regular enough" to have a detrimental effect. She appealed, and although the court found that the arbitrator had misapplied the law, there were no legal grounds to overturn the arbitrator's decision. Ms. Smith was repeatedly and egregiously harassed on the job. She complained and was retaliated against. Her contract didn't allow her the right to go to court. An arbitrator made a mistake, yet she was told there was nothing she could do. Does this sound fair to you? Smith v. PSI Services II Inc., Troy Hughes, and John Does 1-10, J/S/I (2001) This case is significant because it eliminated an employee's ability to sue any state employer for lost earnings. Jones v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (courtesty of civilrights.org) Click on the appropriate link for more information about women's rights and workers' rights. After Mr. Jayco reported that the investigation he was working on violated the requirements of federal environmental laws, his employer fired him. Mr. Jayco filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA found that Mr. Jayco's employer -- the state of Ohio -- had violated what's called the "whistleblower" part of federal law, which protects workers against retaliation for speaking up when something's wrong. Ohio then sought a formal hearing and an administrative law judge who reviewed the case also found that Ohio had violated whistleblower laws and that Mr. Jayco had a right to get his job back. Ohio challenged this ruling in federal court, and -- despite earlier findings that Mr. Jayco had been unfairly fired -- the court threw out his case, ruling that he had no right to go to court to enforce his rights against his employer. The ruling was technical, and based on a developing trend in the courts that states should be protected and shielded from federal law. Even though his employer retaliated against him, and he is covered by existing federal laws, Mr. Jayco could not go to court enforce his rights or get paid for the wages he lost as a result of Ohio's retaliation. State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency v. U.S. Department of Labor (2000) Mr. Chittister took his employer to court on the grounds that it had violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This act requires an employer (among other things) to provide up to twelve weeks of leave because of a serious health condition that makes an employee unable to perform his or her job. The act also says that an employee must be compensated if the employer interferes with any of the guaranteed rights. Mr. Chittister believed this important law would protect people like him, because his former employer unfairly denied his leave and fired him. The jury thought so too, and found in Mr. Chittister's favor. But the court threw the case out on a technicality. The court applied a narrow interpretation of the Constitution's Eleventh Amendment and said that private suits against states were prohibited, and because the state was Mr. Chittister's employer, his hands were tied. Mr. Chittister appealed and lost again at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, this time in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, before his promotion to the Supreme Court. Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development (2000) For more information on workers' rights, go that section. King v. State (courtesy of civilrights.org) David McGregor was a corrections officer with the New York State Department of Correctional Services. He told his employer that he needed some time off to accompany his pregnant wife to medical appointments and Lamaze classes. Three days after taking time off he was suspended. Soon after that, he was fired. McGregor took his employer to court to enforce his rights under a federal law called the Family Medical Leave Act (the law grants up to 12 weeks off to care for a family member with a serious medical condition, among other things). His employer didn't dispute the charges but argued that because they are a state entity they can't be sued by their employees (under a false interpretation of an amendment in the Constitution). The court agreed and dismissed the case. McGregor lost his job, and there was nothing he could do. More and more workers are powerless to sue their employer, even if the employer did something illegal, if that employer is the state. And it makes it easier for certain employers to discriminate. McGregor v. Goord (1998) For more information on workers' rights, go that section. In 1988, a student called A.W. (courts use initials to protect the privacy of minors) enrolled in the Jersey City Public School system as a second grader. Because he has dyslexia, he had a very hard time learning how to read, write, and spell. His school system had no reading and writing program -- something required by law -- to help students with dyslexia learn and A.W. continued to fall behind other students of his age. A.W.'s grandmother filed a complaint with the New Jersey Department of Education on behalf of her grandson and other Jersey City students with dyslexia. The department confirmed that the schools had failed to implement any reading and writing program for students with dyslexia -- but then did nothing to ensure the schools did anything about it. In 2000, 13 years after A.W. entered the Jersey City public school system, the school district finally implemented an educational program that required specialized instruction in reading, writing, and spelling. Although he finally received the education he deserved, A.W. was by then a 20-year-old tenth-grader and had missed out on years of critical learning, so he took his case to court. A.W. sued under section 1983, a federal statute that creates a right for an individual to bring a lawsuit when their rights were violated by a state. A.W. claimed that his rights were violated because the state failed to abide by two important federal statutes. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program that receives federal funding. The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act guarantees all children with disabilities a "free appropriate public education" that meets their specific needs. Up until this case, parents and children were able to sue public school systems and their employees under section 1983 for violations of these two acts. But that changed when the Court of Appeals said that A.W. could not sue under section 1983. Now students like A.W. cannot seek compensation for their losses. A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schools (2007) Ultimately, she went to court on her own behalf and on behalf of a whole group of other African American tenants, claiming that the lack of attention to the condition of the apartments was a result of intentional discrimination. The District Court in Illinois has allowed Ms. Ross to proceed with her claim but, because of the Sandoval ruling, she faces a steep uphill battle. Until 2000, Ms. Ross and her fellow residents could have gone to court to enforce federal regulations prohibiting actions that have an unjustified discriminatory impact. Now, under current law, she will have to prove that the management company's negligence in repairing the conditions was intentionally racist -- something almost impossible to do. Ross v. Midland Management Company, (2003) The total route of the planned light-rail was 22 miles, but the 4.6-mile section that would cut through Save Our Valley's area was the only section that called for street level trains. This short section also had more property seizures slated than in the rest of the route combined. The community would be cut in two and subjected to the noise, environmental, and dangerous impacts of street-level trains. Save Our Valley argued that the plan discriminated against the community on the basis of race and sued under a federal law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights law, created to protect people from discrimination. One section of this law, in particular, prohibits agencies receiving federal money from discriminating on the basis of race or national origin. Many agencies, including the federal Department of Transportation have regulations that make it clear that unjust and racially unequal impacts are prohibited. Save Our Valley lost the case because of recent Supreme Court decisions that have limited any community's ability to try to enforce government policy in court. Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2003) Pearl and Theodore Murphy believed that their son who has a disability was not receiving the kind of public education that's guaranteed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They sued their school district to force it to provide the education the boy needed and the court decided the case in their favor. Many families can't afford to hire a lawyer, so the law allows families to request that school districts pay their fees and costs if they win the lawsuit under the IDEA, because getting children appropriate services is so important. Arlington Central School District v. Murphy (2006) The Housing Act of 1937 was created to make sure that any subsidized housing was "decent, safe, and sanitary." But the families living in a subsidized apartment complex in Dallas had conditions that were anything but. The buildings had serious structural problems--floors separating from walls, leaking roofs and ceilings, backed up sewage drains. The buildings and hallways were repeatedly and constantly vandalized. There were murders and other violent crimes committed on a regular basis. The tenants complained to the housing authority with an average of 2-3 letters every day. One complaint said: "A man died in my front door early Monday morning in fact two men were killed in the apts. the same morning." There were regular gun battles, and a seven-year-old boy named Charles Cleveland was killed in the crossfire. The Dallas housing authority failed to take action to ensure that the housing was "decent, safe, and sanitary," and the situation only deteriorated. Finally, the families got together and sued their housing authority and the owners of the building for breaking the law. It seemed they were successful when, at first, the housing authority stopped giving rental assistance to the landlords. The case went to trial, and the jury found the apartment owners guilty of violating the Housing Act. Even though the case went to trial and the jury agreed that the landlords had violated the law, the court disagreed, and disregarded the jury's decision, based on a technicality. Although the federal housing law spelled out rights, this court decided that it didn't spell out exactly what could be done if those rights were violated. The court essentially ruled that there was no federal right to decent housing and shut its doors on these families and others whose rights to a decent, safe, and sanitary home under the Fair Housing Act are violated. The court that heard Serena's case agreed that the housing authority had violated the law and ordered it to fix the problems. The housing authority challenged this ruling and the case went back to court. This time, the appeals court threw her case out of court on a technicality: This court said that although the housing law said Ms. Dewakuku had rights, it didn't explicitly say she could go to court if those rights were violated. Ms. Dewakuku couldn't go to court and she was stuck with a defective and badly built home. This court tells us that even if a housing authority violates the law, the people who buy shoddily built homes have no legal remedy in court. We may think we have rights because of certain laws, but we can't necessarily enforce them. Jose Castro worked at Hoffman Plastics, but when Mr. Castro and others supported a union-organizing campaign they were fired. The National Labor Relations Board ruled that firing these workers violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and ordered Hoffman Plastics to compensate the plaintiffs for wages they would have earned had they not been fired. Reinforced Earth Company v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board et. al (courtesy of civilrights.org) When it denied admission to Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, she sued, saying she was discriminated against on the basis of race. By a margin of only one vote (now-retired Justice O'Connor's) the Supreme Court decided in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) that it was legal for the law school to use race as one of the factors in deciding which students to admit. The Court found that diversity was valuable and that admissions policies can justify looking at race and ethnicity as factors in admissions in a carefully crafted policy to achieve diversity. However, the use of race in admission must be limited, and is sometimes difficult to employ. In a companion case, the Supreme Court found University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy to be unlawful. The admissions process was also intended to encourage diversity and it considered many factors, including grades, test scores, high school quality, curriculum strength, where the student is from, relationships with college alumni, leadership potential, and race. Each factor including race was assigned a number of points toward a 100-point minimum for admission. This, the university argued, encouraged diversity and significantly contributed to a better educational environment. The Supreme Court decided, however, that this admissions policy was unconstitutional because applicants from underrepresented groups were given points based on their race or ethnicity. Colleges and universities that attempt to foster and support diversity have to strike a very delicate balance. And now that the makeup of the Supreme Court has changed, and Justice O'Connor has retired, diversity in the schools hangs in the balance. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003); Gratz v. Bollinger (2003). Ms. Litman tried to sue the university, saying that it had retaliated against her, and filed her suit under a law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools, like George Mason University, that receive federal financial assistance. The court ruled against Ms. Litman, saying that the language of the law did not give her the specific right to go to court and sue for retaliation. The court's ruling suggested that even though the law allows federal agencies to include retaliation as a type of discrimination that's prohibited, Ms. Litman can't sue to stop discrimination based on retaliation. She and others are left with no way to get a court to enforce her right to an education free from sexual harassment. Wills v. Brown University (courtesy of civilrights.org) Passed under President Nixon in 1972, the Clean Water Act is one of the most successful and popular environmental laws and gives the federal government authority over the "waters of the United States." The Supreme Court's ruling in a 2006 case calls into question the future of the Clean Water Act, and has very wide-reaching implications for both the environment and for the federal government's power to enforce laws that protect our environment. The recent Supreme Court ruling was spurred by two Michigan property-rights cases that sought to redefine how the Clean Water Act was interpreted and challenge the power and constitutionality of this important federal statute. John A. Rapanos faced steep criminal charges for filling in federally protected wetlands -- without permission -- in order to build a shopping center. In the second case, the Army Corps of Engineers denied a permit to a couple who wanted to fill part of their property so they could develop condominiums. At the core of these cases about "wetlands" -- ecosystems essential for flood control, drinking water, agriculture, and wildlife -- is also a key issue: Can the federal government pass and enforce laws? The cases raised the question whether Congress can pass a law to protect water that might be just within a single state. There is a lot at stake: thousands of miles of small streams and an estimated 20 million acres of wetlands. Because water in many states is connected, with almost every state downstream from another, federal oversight plays an important role in environmental protection. In its ruling, the Supreme Court limited the scope of the Clean Water Act, but not as much as Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would have wanted it to. The confusing ruling may lead to years of regulatory battles and court cases, and threatens the future of the Clean Water Act. For now, because of one vote by Justice Kennedy, the federal government can still regulate and protect our wetlands. Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006) Disability laws don't protect the parents of disabled children Cheryl Blanchard spent years fighting for her son Daniel to have a proper education. Daniel was autistic and received special education through their local school district in Washington. But the school district did not keep their promise to provide Daniel with the additional services he required: individual attention, extra time in school, and equal treatment. Ms. Blanchard went to hearing after hearing trying to get the school district to give Daniel the education that the law entitles him to. Some of the problems were resolved, but not all. Ms. Blanchard was still upset that her son was being denied access to field trips that other children were attending. And even though the school district eventually complied with some of the orders, she'd had to miss work for the hearings, and the hurdles the school district forced her to jump over had taken their toll over the years. Frustrated, she brought the Morton School District into court, claiming emotional distress and seeking the lost wages she would have earned during the times she was preparing for and attending hearings. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her case, holding that Ms. Blanchard did not have a right to sue for own distress and lost wages. The law protects children with disabilities, not their parents, the Court held. Ms. Blanchard's case is significant because it limits the ability of parents to sue. Not only do parents have to fight for school districts to provide a good education to their disabled children, but the courts, at least in the Ninth Circuit, have now left parents without a way to seek lost wages for the work they missed. But after four complaints, state officials never responded. So she sued the Oregon Attorney General and other officials, alleging that they violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment and the Older Americans Act, a federal statute that directs states to investigate elder abuse. The U.S. District Court of Oregon held that Erna did not have a right to bring a lawsuit forcing the state officials to investigate elder abuse. The Older Americans Act did not allow individuals to force state officials to comply with it, and further, the statute only recommended, not required, that states investigate elder abuse. Additionally, the 14th Amendment did not give Erna the right to sue either. Erna has appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case is the result of a 2005 U.S. Supreme court ruling, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, which limited an individual?s right to sue under the 14th Amendment. Boldt's case illustrates the effect that Gonzales had in limiting a person's right to sue for statutory enforcement. Thus, although this is only a lower court opinion, it represents a trend in courts across the country. After this ruling, it will be much more difficult to require states to investigate instances of elder abuse. Older Americans like Erna no longer have a way to ask the courts to ensure that their rights are being protected. Mr. Littleton sued Wal-Mart for discriminating against him because of his disability. The case went all the way up the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that Mr. Littleton was not disabled under ADA rules and therefore could not sue for disability discrimination. In order to be considered disabled for ADA purposes, Mr. Littleton had to prove that he was 'substantially limited in a major life activity.' Even though Mr. Littleton's disability was permanent and limited his ability to work and learn, the court found this was not enough to prove he was disabled for purposes of the law. Mr. Littleton had attended school and was able to think, communicate and work, the court held, so he was not disabled under the ADA, even though he was mentally challenged. He tried to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court but the justices denied his petition. Thus, Mr. Littleton's case now makes the law more difficult for plaintiffs to bring disability discrimination lawsuits. Plaintiffs have to prove much more to show they are 'substantially limited in a major life activity.' Littleton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) Confused and violated, Alida and her family attempted to hold their school district accountable for Waldrup's behavior. The case Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1998 that school districts can be held responsible only if they knew about the sexual harassment and refused to do anything about it. This decision is devastating in that it actually provides less recourse for children to file a complaint about harassment than the average adult employee - even the teachers in Alida's school have more protection against unwanted advances than their vulnerable and impressionable charges. Further, the Gebser case has been used as precedent to limit liability for damages for harassment based on race, color, and national origin, making it nearly impossible for victims of harassment to sue under Title IX, Title VI, or other related statutes in order to restore their sense of justice. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) But in a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the programs were unconstitutional because they violated the Constitution?s Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. The Court held that using race as a factor in assigning children to schools was discriminatory and could not be justified. The Court's decision went against the tradition of Brown v. Board of Education, which declared 'separate but equal' unconstitutional and held that all students have a right to attend integrated schools. As a result, school districts will find it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to assign children to schools in a way that ensures diversity. Schools are once again becoming segregated by race as they were before Brown. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007) Mr. Adams wanted a day in court, but Circuit City argued that his discrimination claim had to be arbitrated under the Federal Arbitration Act. The company pointed to the waiver Mr. Adams had signed as part of his application for employment. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act required Mr. Adams to arbitrate his claim outside of court. That law applies to all employment contracts, except for those of employees working in the transportation industry, the Court held. The decision has made it much easier for employers to force their employees to contract away their right to bring a suit in court. Some states had laws that prohibited employers from forcing their employees to waive away their rights. But this case, and a previous case Southland Corp. v. Keating, has given employers nationwide more power to force employees into signing arbitration agreements. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (2001) Mr. Ceballos wrote a memo notifying his supervisors of the deputy's misconduct, and recommended that the DA's office dismiss the case. But not only did his supervisors choose to ignore him and continue with the prosecution, the DA's office retaliated against Mr. Ceballos by transferring him to another location and denying him a promotion. Left with no choice, Mr. Ceballos sued the DA's office and his superiors under the First Amendment, which is supposed to protect our freedom of speech. But the Supreme Court decided Mr. Ceballos did not deserve First Amendment protection for his memo because he wrote it as part of his job as a deputy DA, even though his memo was about police corruption. Because the First Amendment did not protect Mr. Ceballos as a whistleblower, the DA's office was allowed to retaliate against him. With this decision, the Supreme Court makes it harder for courageous government whistleblowers to uncover corruption that threatens the foundations of American democracy. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2006 Savana and her mother sued the school district and the officials who participated in the search, alleging that the strip search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The case went up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that school officials did not violate any of Savana?s rights when they strip searched her. The tip from Savana's classmate was enough to justify the official's need to conduct a strip search, the court held, even though the tip was uncorroborated and Savana had no prior disciplinary history. Most 13-year-old girls are self-conscious and private about their bodies, and other courts have recognized that strip searching children and young teenagers can cause psychological damage. But this court did not seem to be worried about the potentially traumatizing and emotional harmful effects the search could have on Savana. This case makes it easier for school districts to conduct strip searches of students, without having a solid and justifiable reason. Redding v. Safford Unified School District #1 (2007)
The founders of this nation recognized that while the judicial branch of government may be the least democratic of the three branches, it is a necessary predicate for a true democracy. The judiciary is the branch of government that is designed to safeguard individual rights and liberties, and to protect the minority from the majority?s rule. The judiciary is often the last resort for people in the United States whose rights have been violated by the actions of government officials and private citizens.
But in the last thirty years, the federal benches have dangerously shifted to the political right. As a result, the courts are increasingly unavailable for the average person to enforce rights. In many areas, the judiciary is adopting narrow conceptions of rights, leaving victims all too often without a remedy. This civil rights rollback is especially profound in the area of racial discrimination.
Here are a few of the key cases that show the human impact of negative court rulings and illustrate how the courts are rolling back and weakening our civil rights. Many of these cases impact other areas of law and other communities -- the outcome in a case about one community in Camden, New Jersey, for example, makes it difficult for anyone to have the right to go to court to prove discrimination.
This is an evolving list. If you know of a case that should be here, please let us know at rollback@nylpi.org.
CHILDREN CAN'T VOTE, SO WE HAVE LAWS TO PROTECT THEM. WHY WON'T THE COURTS ENFORCE THOSE LAWS?
Foster children in Florida were kept in overcrowded and inadequate homes and facilities and placed with families that were abusive, dangerous or neglectful. Advocates for the children sued the state governor and other officials because they failed to keep the children safe and provide them with appropriate care or placements.
Bonnie L. v. Bush (2003)
For more information about children's rights, go to that section.
Click on the appropriate link for more information about women's rights and workers' rights.
HARASSED, FIRED AND UP THE CREEK. WHERE'S THE FAIRNESS?
Click on the appropriate link for more information about women's rights and workers' rights.
FREE TO DISCRIMINATE (IF THE EMPLOYER IS THE STATE)
John Alden and his co-workers sued their employer, the State of Maine, for failing to pay them, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Supreme Court had already held that states cannot be sued for violations of this law in federal court, so these workers were forced to sue in state court. But the Supreme Court ruled that the state could not be sued in state court either for back pay or damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This ruling leaves people powerless to sue their employer, even if the employer did something illegal, if that employer is their state.
Alden v. Maine (1999)
For more information about workers' rights, go to that section.
-------
Patricia Garrett was a supervising nurse at the University of Alabama's Medical Center when she was diagnosed and treated for breast cancer. Ms. Garrett's illness forced her to take a substantial leave from work. When she recovered and returned to work, she was fully able to perform all her job responsibilities. But the Medical Center demoted her to a lower-paying position.
Ms. Garrett sued the Medical Center for discriminating against her based on her disability. She sought back pay. The Supreme Court held that Ms. Garrett could not get her back pay from the Medical Center. It held that state institutions such as the University of Alabama could not be sued for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although employees can sue private employers for back pay, the Court held that the Constitution's 11th Amendment barred people from suing any state employers for back pay. Therefore, despite being discriminated against on the basis of a disability, Patricia was unable to recover lost earnings from the state-run medical center.
Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett (2001)
For more information on disability rights and workers rights, click on the appropriate link.
-------
Daniel Kimel and other librarians at Florida State University sued the State of Florida for discriminating against them because of their age, by paying them less than younger workers in the same position and by not promoting them. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that although the university's pay policy disproportionately hurt older workers, Daniel Kimel could not bring his case in federal court. Through a narrow reading of the Constitution's Eleventh Amendment that prohibits private suits against states, the Court ruled that states couldn't be sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000)
For more information about rights for senior citizens, go that section.
-------
Judy Jones started working at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in 1974. She drove buses and subway trains. In 1984, she was promoted to a supervisory position, but she found that despite getting very good job evaluations, her career hit a brick wall. She could not move up any higher. Judy thought that she was being discriminated against because of her age and she complained. After she filed a lawsuit, she was fired on trumped up charges. After being out of work for over three years, a jury found that Judy had been retaliated against for complaining about age discrimination. They awarded her over $200,000 in damages and she got her job back.
But the Supreme Court had said in Kimel v. Florida State University (above) that individuals have no right to sue state employers for money damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In light of that decision, the Transit Authority was able to argue that it was immune from suit. Thus, Judy never recovered the $200,000 that she had been awarded for the discrimination she experienced. Judy still works at Metro, getting to work by 4:30 a.m. every morning to keep things running on time. It is tragic that she had to endure this discrimination and never get any compensation for the injury she experienced.
-------
Paul Jayco was working for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency investigating the safety of schools that had been built on a site formerly used by the military. Mr. Jayco and his co-workers were looking into whether the high incidence of leukemia in the area was caused by cancer-causing agents deposited on nearby school grounds.
For more information on workers' rights, go that section.
-------
David Chittister, a former Acting Director at the Department of Community and Economic Development, was granted paid sick leave by his employer when both his doctor and psychologist confirmed that he had chronic reoccurring depression along with coronary artery disease and chronic gastritis, and that work stress was making his health deteriorate further. While on sick leave, Mr. Chittister's employer revoked his leave and asked him to return to work with only a few days' notice. After David did not return, he was fired.
More and more workers are powerless to sue their employer, even if the employer did something illegal, if that employer is the state. This makes it easier for certain employers to discriminate.
-------
Is it fair for states to be able to violate the law, but not pay the victims the money they are owed? For years, state troopers like Douglas King were working overtime and not getting paid for it. Failing to compensate hourly workers for overtime is a direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Mr. King and more than 200 Nebraska state troopers went to court to get compensation. The state offered the troopers "comp" time instead, but that doesn't pay the bills. The court was forced to follow the Supreme Court's earlier Alden v. Maine decision, which said that state employees can't get money for violations of the FLSA.
For more information on workers' rights, go that section.
-------
Imagine if you took time off from work you were legally entitled to and you got fired? Then imagine that no court would help you get your job back or uphold your rights. To David McGregor this wasn't imaginary, it was real.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES LOSE IMPORTANT LEGAL REMEDY
For more information on disability rights, go to that section.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH ANYMORE TO JUST BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. NOW TO MAKE IT STOP YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT'S INTENTIONAL. SOMETHING ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE.
Martha Sandoval could drive and could read the signs on the road in English, but she was not a fluent English speaker. Alabama, where she lived, however, had passed an "English only" policy. When she was not allowed to take any part of her driving test in Spanish, and therefore discriminated against on the basis of national origin, Ms. Sandoval sued her state.
In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that Martha Sandoval had no right to bring her case in court. The Court decided that private individuals could only sue to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or national origin) if they can prove intentional discrimination, something almost impossible to do.
Alexander v. Sandoval (2001)
Click on the links for more information about language rights or racial justice.
-------
South Camden, New Jersey, is home to more than 100 contaminated sites and hundreds of polluting industries. The city's drinking-water supply has been contaminated for decades, and its air pollution levels are among the highest in New Jersey. In 2001, a court stopped a permit for a new cement factory because of the unfair polluting impact that this plant would have on its neighbors (there were already many toxic plants in the area). The court said that the people who lived in the area around the factory were being discriminated against because of their race, and made to bear more than their fair share of the problems of pollution.
However, following the Supreme Court ruling in 2001's Sandoval case, it is no longer enough to prove that there is a discriminatory effect on a racial group. Instead, people have to prove that the discrimination was intentional, something almost impossible to do.
After several appeals, the people of South Camden finally lost their case in 2006.
South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
For more information about environmental justice, go that section.
-------
Dredia Ross lives with her children in an apartment complex whose management receives federal funds to provide low-rent housing. Conditions in her apartment were dangerous, with mold growing and dirty water seeping in. Though she complained to the management company, Ms. Ross heard nothing and had to keep living under these conditions while she waited for a response.
For more information on housing rights, go to that section.
-------
A coalition called Save Our Valley represented a low-income and ethnically diverse neighborhood in Seattle. The group, composed of dozens of property owners and community groups, objected to Sound Transit's plan to run light-rail trains at street level in its community. While many buildings were to be condemned to make way for the project in their neighborhood, the plans called for relatively few property seizures in the whiter, wealthier neighborhoods where trains would run underground in a tunnel or high above ground on elevated tracks.
For more information about environmental justice, go that section.
DISABILITY RIGHTS FOR THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT
Though the district and circuit courts granted the Murphy's request, in 2006, the Supreme Court ruled against them. Through a narrow reading of the law, the majority of the Court decided that the costs of experts -- needed to prove a case -- could not be reimbursed. This decision makes it even more difficult for parents with limited resources to go to court to enforce their children's rights to the education they need. If parents have to cover the cost of getting expert opinions in order to prove their case, many children won't get appropriate services, just because their parents can't afford the legal costs.
For more information on disability rights and education, click on the appropriate link.
-------
One-hundred-and-two-year-old Dorsey Pierce, a resident of the Buckhannon Board and Care Home, was told by his state of West Virginia that he could not continue to live at Buckhannon because of a law called the "self-preservation rule" that prohibited the home from housing people who could not exit the facility without aid in the case of a fire. Buckhannon, Mr. Pierce and other residents sued the state, saying that this law discriminated against people with disabilities. Before the case could be decided, however, the West Virginia Legislature repealed the self-preservation rule, and thus the Court said that it no longer needed to rule on the case. Even though they didn't technically win their case in a court of law, Mr. Pierce and the home believed that it was their lawsuit that had lead to the repeal of this law and the favorable outcome and asked the Court to award them attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court ruled that because they had not won the suit in court they couldn't get their money back.
Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources (2001)
Click on the links for more information on senior citizens rights, access to health care, or disability rights.
-------
Residents of the Great Oaks Center, a Maryland institution for individuals with developmental disabilities, were subjected to abuse, neglect, unnecessary physical restraints, denied medical care and services to prevent their deterioration. They went to court and sought to stop new admissions to Great Oaks Center and to have current residents transferred to appropriate community living arrangements. Four years later, the state closed Great Oaks and within three years all but two of the residents were transferred to community placements.
Because most of what the former residents had complained about had been fixed, everyone agreed to dismiss the case. When they sought reimbursement for their attorney's work, which amounted to over $1 million, they were denied. Although the courts agreed that the lawsuit had contributed substantially to the state's actions, because of the Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon (above), the former residents were out of luck.
Wade v. Coughlin (2000; courtesy of civilrights.org)
Click on the links for more information on access to health care or disability rights.
PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO "DECENT, SAFE, AND SANITARY" HOUSING. THEY JUST CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT IF IT ISN'T.
Banks v. Dallas Housing Authority (2001)
For more information on housing rights, go to that section.
-------
Serena Dewakuku bought a house that was built by the Hopi Tribal Housing Authority through an assistance program that helps low-income Indian families. After she bought the house, Serena found that it had serious structural and design problems. She reported this to the housing authority, but it did nothing to fix the problems. Serena sued claiming that the home she had bought from her housing authority did not meet the standards of a federal law called the Indian Housing Act, which was created to make sure any subsidized housing was of good quality.
Dewakuku v. Martinez, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (2001)
For more information about housing rights, go that section.
DISABILITY RIGHTS? KIND OF.
Jeffery Gorman, who uses a wheelchair, was arrested in Kansas City, Missouri. The van used to take him to the police station was not equipped to transport him in his wheelchair. Despite his protests, the officers removed Mr. Gorman from his chair and used his belt to strap him onto a bench. When the belt gave way he fell from the bench hurting his back and shoulder, and rupturing his urine bag.
Mr. Gorman sued the Kansas City police department for discrimination based on his disability. A jury agreed with Mr. Gorman, and awarded him damages. The jury also sent the police a message that their conduct was especially offensive by awarding Mr. Gorman punitive damages (money awarded with the intent of punishing for reckless and malicious behavior). But in 2002, the Supreme Court took that tool away from juries and held that punitive damages can't be awarded in cases enforcing laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability.
Barnes v. Gorman (2002)
For more information on disability rights, go to that section.
WORKERS' RIGHTS? KINDA, SORTA.
In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRB couldn't award post-termination back pay to Mr. Castro and others because they were undocumented and not able to work legally in the United States. Despite the fact that Hoffman Plastics had violated federal law by firing Mr. Castro and others for organizing, the workers lost the wages they would have earned and could do nothing about it.
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. (2002)
For more information about workers' rights, go that section.
-------
Juan Carlos Astudillo worked as a maintenance helper for Reinforced Earth. There, he cut and welded iron and repaired motors, and was required to climb scaffolds and ladders and lift heavy steel beams. In 1994, Juan Carlos was hit in the head, neck, and back by a steel beam, and was rendered unconscious at work. He sustained a concussion, a mild head injury, and as a result, over the next few months Juan Carlos experienced headaches, dizziness, loss of balance, and upper and lower back pain. He was subsequently terminated from his job and he filed for workers' compensation. In an outrageous move, the company that Juan Carlos had worked so hard for responded to his compensation claim by saying he wasn't entitled to the benefits because he was undocumented.
Juan Carlos' case is just another example of a company benefiting from the hard work of an immigrant and then exploiting their undocumented status when the worker tries to exercise one of the few rights that workers have under the law. While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Juan Carlos was entitled to medical benefits, it also found that illegal immigration status might justify terminating benefits for temporary total disability. This case is a direct outgrowth of Hoffman Plastics (above).
For more information about workers' rights, go that section.
-------
If you had to choose between taking a job and signing away your civil rights, which would it be? This was the choice that Donald Lagatree had to make. Because he chose his rights, Donald was out of a job. Donald thought it was unfair for his company to force him to sign an arbitration agreement in order to work for them. To Donald it was important to retain his civil rights -- including the right to a jury trial -- in the event that he faced employment discrimination. The law firm withdrew its offer to hire Donald.
Arbitration lacks the important protections of our traditional justice system. It is no wonder so many corporations want to force their employees to sign these agreements. Don't corporations have enough power as it is? Is it really fair to allow them to circumvent the traditional legal system when employment discrimination is at issue?
EEOC v. Luce Howard (2002; courtesy of civilrights.org).
For more information about workers' rights, go that section.
GOT RIGHTS? ONLY IF THE LAW THAT PROTECTS THEM SPECIFICALLY DETAILS WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT IF THOSE RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED.
A former university student brought suit against Gonzaga University, saying that the university had released private information about him in violation of the Federal Education Right to Privacy Act (FERPA). He claimed that the release of the information was a violation of his civil rights. In 2002, the Supreme Court held that because the law that the student was seeking to enforce did not include explicit rights-creating language, he couldn't enforce it. So although the university had violated federal law by releasing private information, the student was powerless to do anything about it.
Gonzaga v. Doe (2002)
CAN UNIVERSITIES ENSURE A DIVERSE STUDENT BODY? VERY TRICKY.
Written into the civil rights laws of the 1960s, affirmative action was designed to ensure equal opportunity for groups that had long been discriminated against by employers and institutions. Michigan Law School, one of the nation's top law schools, modified its admission process to ensure the diversity of its student body. According to its admissions policy, the school looks for students with "substantial promise for success in law school" and who have "a strong likelihood of succeeding in the practice of law and contributing in diverse ways to the well-being of others" and "varying backgrounds and experiences who will respect and learn from each other."
Click on the link you want for more information about education and racial justice.
HARASSMENT-FREE EDUCATION? NO LONGER GUARANTEED.
Annette Litman was a student at George Mason University when the professor she did research for began harassing her. He told her routinely that he loved her and asked questions about her sex life. He stalked her, waiting for her after classes and telling her he "missed her." After she tried to avoid him, he told her he "had his ways" of finding her. She complained, and, although the university ordered the professor to stay away, it refused to investigate. She pursued her complaint but the university belittled Ms. Litman by calling her persistence a "fishing expedition."
Litman v. George Mason University (2001)
Click on the appropriate link for more information about women's rights and education.
-------
Marketa Wills, like many others, struggled with her course in organic chemistry as an undergraduate at Brown University. Being a diligent student, she sought help from a chemistry professor. Upon Marketa's arrival, the professor closed the door to his office and requested Marketa join him in prayer, where he then asked God to open up Marketa's brain so that she "could be more receptive to him and to chemistry formulas and equations." Several minutes later the teacher picked Marketa up, put his arms around her waist and sat her on his lap. As he "prayed" about Marketa's problems he put his hand under her shirt, rubbed her stomach, and touched her breast. And this touch was no accident. According to Marketa, the teacher repeated this prayer mixed with fondling two more times in the hour and forty-five minutes or so that she was with the professor. After the session was over the professor said to her, "Don't let the Devil confuse Marketa into thinking that anything that went on today was sexual."
Though Marketa complained to proper school authorities about the incident, the school simply reprimanded the professor and placed him on probation -- even though a memorandum outlining the school's sexual harassment policy listed suspension or dismissal as the official response to sex discrimination. Two months after the incident the professor was given a raise and retained by the university. In addition, this man was the only available organic professor -- a course which all pre-med students like Marketa had to take in order to enter medical school. But because of the enormous burden of proof that student plaintiffs are forced to meet, Marketa lost her case.
It is baffling that the Supreme Court employs a higher standard of proof for students than for workers. The pressures of a student on the medical school track are enormous. Is it fair to allow students such limited recourse in the face of sexual harassment from a trusted authority?
Click on the appropriate link for more information about women's rights and education.
LANDMARK ENVIRONMENTAL LAW LOSES STRENGTH
For more information about environmental protection, go to that section.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWERLESS TO FIGHT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Two men raped Christy Brzonkala while the three were students at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The school did little to help Ms. Brzonkala, and the men continued to harass her. She sued her rapists under the Violence against Women act (VAWA), a law that allowed victims of gender-motivated violence to sue in civil court.
In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to enact a federal statute that legally protected women against their batterers, and that therefore the VAWA was unconstitutional.
US v. Morrison (2000)
For more information about women's rights, go that section.
MEDICAL CARE YOU ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO IS DEFICIENT? TOO BAD.
A group of mothers in Michigan organized themselves because their state was not providing their children adequate health care coverage, even though the state was using federal money for Medicaid. The group decided to sue the state to enforce the provisions of Medicaid they were entitled to.
In 2002, the district court in Michigan held that individuals had no right to enforce Medicaid, because it is an agreement between the federal government and the state. The appeals court reversed this decision, but the reasoning in this case has been adopted by other judges and will no doubt be used again in similar situations.
Westside Mothers v. Haveman (2002)
Click on the appropriate link for more information about access to health care and children's rights.
Blanchard v. Morton School District (2007)
***
Erna Boldt, 80 years old, knew she was competent to handle her own finances. But, her son Leroy disagreed. As the two battled it out in court, Erna felt that her son was taking advantage of her. So she complained to Oregon state officials and asked them to enforce the state?s elder abuse laws that prevented financial exploitation.
Boldt v. Meyers (2007)
***
Like other 29-year-olds, Charles Irvin Littleton wanted to get a job. But the mental disabilities he was born with made it difficult. He'd graduated from high school with a certificate in special education and had attended a technical college, but he still lived at home and supported himself with social security benefits and the help of his family. He began working with a job coach who arranged for Mr. Littleton to have an interview at an Alabama Wal-Mart store. But when Wal-Mart officials told Mr. Littleton that his job coach could not come to the interview with him, everything went downhill. Mr. Littleton's interview did not go well and Wal-Mart did not offer him a job.
***
Alida Gebser was thirteen years old when she met Frank Waldrup, who would later be one of her teachers during her first year of high school. In her school district in Lago Vista, Texas, class offerings for the most gifted students had just been cut, so Alida took Mr. Waldrup up on his offer to give her one-on-one lessons, in spite of his occasional illicit commentary. Their tutoring sessions quickly turned into a sexual relationship that lasted a year and a half until the police got involved.
***
The Supreme Court last term resurrected "separate but equal" in our schools. Because of the Court's ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, schools risk becoming more segregated, and children of all races will likely have fewer opportunities to learn together and become prepared to live and work in a diverse world.
Parents Involved in Community Schools involved a challenge to student admission plans in school districts in both Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Kentucky. Concerned about how racial isolation was affecting their own children and community, locally-elected school boards in Louisville and Seattle had adopted student assignment measures to foster integrated, diverse schools. The voluntary plans used modest measures to promote integration while prioritizing parental choice and community schools. As part of the plans, the school districts looked at race as a factor in determining whether or not to transfer a student. The programs in both Seattle and Louisville had been upheld by lower courts and were similar to programs in many school districts across the country.
***
When Saint Clair Adams was hired at Circuit City he signed a waiver that took away his right to sue, and instead agreed to have any claims be heard by an arbitrator. He left his job at Circuit City a year later and sent a request demanding an arbitration hearing to appeal his benefits. But the company ignored his request, so Mr. Adams filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and harassment based on his sexual orientation.
***
Richard Ceballos worked for more than 10 years as a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney?s Office. In February 2000, a defense attorney in a criminal case the DA's office was prosecuting contacted Mr. Ceballos with concerns about the accuracy of a sworn statement made by a sheriff's deputy in the case. Mr. Ceballos investigated and concluded the sheriff's deputy who prepared the statement had lied.
***
When school officials at Safford Unified School District got a tip from another student that eighth grade honor roll student Savana Redding had brought prescription strength Ibuprofen to school, they didn't just question Savana. Nor did they just look through her bag or her jacket pockets. Instead, school officials pulled her from her classroom, brought her to the nurse's office, and ordered her to strip down to her bra and underwear. They even went so far as to order 13-year-old Savana to expose her breasts and pelvic area so they could see if she was hiding any pills in her undergarments. And they never let her call her parents prior to this search. The school officials found nothing.