4th Circuit: Black Workers May Pursue Class-Action Racial Discrimination Claim (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil May 13, 2015)


www.edelsteinpayne.com/employment-law

4th Circuit: Black Workers May Pursue Class-Action Racial Discrimination Claim


Originally Posted by Sean Cecil May 13, 2015  (0 Comments)
Black workers at Nucor Steel in Charleston, SC sued claiming a racially hostile environment and discriminatory promotion practices. However, the trial court judge decertified their class on the promotions claim. 
Holding that the trial judge erred in his interpretation of a 2011 class-action case wherein the US Supreme Court ruled that female Wal-mart employees failed to prove their claims were similar enough to satisfy the "commonality" requirement of class certification, a divided 4th Circuit panel remanded the case with instructions to certify the class. Originally, the district court denied class certification on both claims, and the 4th Circuit ordered them certified; the district court de-certified after the Wal-mart case. 
For a second time, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge erred in refusing to certify the workers' class where: 
1. Statistics indicated that promotions at Nucor depended in part on whether an individual was black or white; 
2. Substantial anecdotal evidence suggests discrimination in specific promotions decisions in multiple plant departments; 
3. significant evidence suggests promotions decisions were made in the context of a racially hostile work environment. 
Based upon those factors, the court stated, the district court "fundamentally misapprehended the reach of Wal-Mart and its application to the workers' promotion class" and the court remanded for re- certification."  
The workers' promotions claim rests on alternative theories of liability under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination because of an individual's “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. The promotions claim first alleges a pattern or practice of racially disparate treatment in promotions decisions. Second, it charges that Nucor's facially neutral promotions policies and procedures had a racially disparate impact. Both theories are grounded in a statistical analysis of racial disparities in job promotions at the plant combined with anecdotal evidence of discrimination. 
The ruling is more about class-certification requirements than the merits of the claims, but it makes for an interesting read and is a huge win for SC workers facing what appears to be pernicious racial discrimination. This case is pretty old  and has been to the 4th Circuit twice now without any trial- it is time for these workers to get their day in court! 
______________________________
If you, a co-worker, friend, neighbor, family member, or a loved one was injured on the job, please know we're here to help.  We provide complimentary case evaluations for workplace accidents any where in the state of North Carolina

For Valuable Tips, Join us, Follow and Subscribe to Edelstein Payne:

Facebook:

Twitter:

Google+

Youtube:

Blogger:

Google Places:

Instagram:

Linkedin:

Pinterest:

Tumblr:

Yelp:

YP.com:

Location: 315 E Jones St, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Home Healthcare Workers are Entitled to Overtime Pay (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jul 06, 2016)

Image
https://edelsteinpayne.com/employment-law Home Healthcare Workers are Entitled to Overtime Pay Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jul 06, 2016 (0 Comments) Long the subject of a terribly unfair rule that exempted them from such standard employment rights as overtime and minimum wage, home healthcare workers are among the worst treated of American workers. Home Healthcare workers hired through a third-party staffing agency have been exempted from those rules since 1974! The Obama administration attempted to remedy this injustice in 2013, and the result has been tied up in courts until last week, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that they would not hear further appeal (the administration's rulemaking prevailed in the court of appeals) effectively ratifying the rule. Home healthcare workers, including, nurses, certified nursing assistants, physical therapists, and others who provide services to the elderly and infirm to help keep them out of nursing homes, provid...
Read more

Felony Larceny by Removing Anti-Shoplifting Device (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Feb 12, 2016)

Image
https://edelsteinpayne.com/criminal-defense Felony Larceny by Removing Anti-Shoplifting Device Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Feb 12, 2016 (0 Comments) As I am still fairly new to the North Carolina Bar and the practice of criminal defense here in NC, I was surprised to recently be in a consultation with an individual whose petty shoplifting allegation was charged as a felony because of the additional allegation that he had removed a security device.  Shoplifting in North Carolina can be charged as a felony if the value of the goods stolen exceeds $1,000.00. It can also be a felony in some other circumstances, including if the person has four or more prior convictions for larceny.  Under North Carolina General Statute Sect. 14-72.11(2), a person is guilty of a Class H felony if the person commits larceny against a merchant "by removing, destroying, or deactivating a component of an antishoplifting or inventory control device  to prevent the activation of a...
Read more

NC Court of Appeals Confirms No Duty to Retreat Prior to Self-Defense (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jun 07, 2017)

Image
https://edelsteinpayne.com/criminal-defense NC Court of Appeals Confirms No Duty to Retreat Prior to Self-Defense Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jun 07, 2017 (0 Comments) North Carolina law does not require retreat before use of self-defense. "Perfect" self-defense is a defense against criminal charges; "imperfect" may be used as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Perfect self-defense requires all four of the following elements: (1) It appeared to defendant and he believed it to be necessary to use force to save himself from harm;  (2) Defendant's belief was reasonable in that the circumstances as they appeared to him at the time were sufficient to create such a belief in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness; (3) Defendant was not the aggressor in bringing on the affray, i.e., he did not aggressively and willingly enter into the fight without legal excuse or provocation; and (4) Defendant did not use excessive force.  Imperfect sel...
Read more