Union Protests and Rallies make their way into Kansas

More than a thousand people rallied at the Kansas Statehouse on Saturday for a "Save the American Dream" rally on the south steps of the Statehouse. The rally was attended by Labor, and Advocacy, and Community organizations from around the State, all joining in solidarity to express support for organized labor.

This followed a demonstration inside the Capital last Thursday as the House passed HB2130. If it clears the Senate, the bill will eliminate a paycheck checkoff that allows workers to voluntarily have donations to their union's political action committee deducted directly from their wages. That protest drew nearly a hundred union workers to the Capital and gallery.

The Kansas State Conference of the NAACP stands in full support of the efforts of Organized Labor to maintain collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin and elsewhere. We believe that the right of workers to organize, to bargain as a group for fair wages and better working conditions, is in line with our best democratic traditions and should not be compromised. The organized Labor movement has afforded ordinary working class men and women the opportunity to fairly negotiate the true value of their goods and services. And at a time of pronounced fiscal uncertainties, now it not the time to start stripping away the rights or silencing the voices of everyday working people so as to protect and safeguard the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

In the late 90's, when the Wichita Branch of the NAACP was faced with serious financial challenges, it was organized labor that came forward and offered us meeting space and access to copies and fax machines so that we could rebuild our organization and continue to serve our community. Now, it is our turn to stand with you... And we do so Proudly.

Read more...

Governor Brownback issues an ERO removing the independence of the Kansas Human Rights Commission

EROs (Executive Reorganization Orders) are provided for in the Kansas Constitution. They enable a Governor to transfer, abolish, consolidate, or coordinate agencies and functions within the executive branch of state government. An ERO becomes effective July 1 following its transmittal to the Legislature, unless within 60 calendar days either the Senate or the House adopts a resolution disapproving the ERO. After an ERO takes effect, it becomes like statute and the Legislature then has the option of amending or repealing an ERO in the same way it would amend any other legislation.

This year, in response to the looming budget issues, Governor Sam Brownback issued a number of ERO's that would eliminate or consolidate State Agencies. While no one could argue that a $550,000,000.00 dollar shortfall would not require significant reorganization, one ERO in particular will have a negative impact on the community that outweighs any potential cost savings.

Governor Brownback issued an ERO that eliminating several positions at the Kansas Human Rights Commission, and moving their investigations under the Attorney General's Office. While the move is planned to save $200,000.00, the real cost to citizens is the loss of the ONLY independent investigative body with statutory enforcement power in the State of Kansas. Now, as a consequence, persons wishing to file a complaint against a State Agency would have to file those complaints with the agency's Attorney of Record! This will remove any independent investigative authority, which is provided by statute, and will replace it with a system where the State will investigate and police itself.

We, as a body, oppose this ERO and we call upon Governor Brownback to rescind it, or the Legislature to block it through passage of a resolution, or to repeal it through the Legislative process.

I was recently copied in on a letter written by retired KHRC Chairman Emeritus James Butler regarding this particular ERO. I am posting it here with his permission...

Dear Senator Reitz:

I served the State of Kansas for many years as Chairman and Commissioner to the Kansas Human Rights Commission, from 1979 to 2005, when I retired as the Chairman. During my tenure, I served under five governors: former Governors John Carlin, Mike Hayden, Joan Finney, Bill Graves and Kathleen Sebelius.

I was informed recently that Governor Brownback made a proposal for the Kansas Human Rights Commission's fiscal year 2012 budget to transfer the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC) to the Kansas Attorney General's office for operation. I was shocked when I read the proposal and I still am because the office of Attorney General is an elected office and, for the first time in the history of the Commission, the Commission would be under the direction of an elected state office and political influence, subject to whatever bias may exist at any particular time. This move would eliminate 58 years of independent decision making in the area of civil rights in the State of Kansas.

The history of the KHRC shows that this is a radical move. Since its establishment in 1953 and through the years, the Kansas Act Against Discrimination through K.S.A. 44-1003 has mandated that a commission direct and govern the KHRC, and not the governor, or any elective office, which might be subject to political influence and conflicts of interest in an area which could give rise to such issues. The Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD) sets up a system of checks and balances in the selection of each Commissioner to establish the independence of the decision making process of the KHRC. The KAAD dictates how each memeber of the Commission is chosen or appointed by the Governor (the executive branch), but that selection must be confirmed by the Senate (the legislative branch). K.S.A. 44-1003 mandates that no more than four (4) members of the commission can be from the same political party and this is another recognition that political influence is an inherent issue in the decision making process of the KHRC. Governor Brownback's recommendation eliminates the Commission in favor of the Attorney General or his designee acting as the final decision maker in civil rights cases, which will be a first in Kansas government.

The rationale for the recommendation is saving money and efficiency in government, but the KHRC has been the most efficient and cost effective operation in Kansas government for the past few years. The Commission has been very prudent in spending money, not having excessive travel to national conferences and organizations, little on-site travel relying on telephonic, email and correspondence to obtain information from complainants and businesses. If the object is to save $231,000, there are other ways to save that amount of money without radically changing the structure of the KHRC. Furthermore, nothing is gained by moving into the Attorney General's office because the KHRC already has subpoena enforcement powers and an attorney who handles the legal issues.

This move would result in nullification of both the Commission's independence and its effectiveness in the enforcement of civil rights in the State of Kansas.

I strongly urge you to oppose this ill-conceived proposal and urge others under your influence to oppose same. Thank you.

James E. Butler
Chairman Emeritus, Retired, KHRC

Read more...

The Kansas State NAACP files employment discrimination complaint against the City of Nickerson Kansas

The Kansas State Conference of the NAACP has sent a formal request that an investigation be conducted into the hiring and employment practices of the City council and Mayor of Nickerson Kansas. The complaint stems from a case filed with the Hutchison Branch of the NAACP by April Addis, the former Police Chief of Nickerson Kansas.

Through our investigation we have discovered what we believe to be a clear pattern and practice of racial discrimination. We affirm Chief Addis' assertion that she was directed to fire a newly hired and qualified Officer (Officer Bembry) because of his race. Further, we believe that the firing of Officer Bembry solely on the basis of his race was a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights act.

We attempted to address this case through the Mayor's office, who referred us to the City's Attorney. We met with the City Attorney and again relayed our concerns, and he stated he would have to go back and talk to the Mayor. We waited a reasonable amount of time to allow the City to effectively address the issue, but no direct action was taken.

The case has now been filed with the EEOC.

Read more...

National unemployment rate declines while African American unemployment rate increases

The Obama administration was quick to herald a drop in the nation’s unemployment rate last month from 10 percent to 9.7 percent. But everyone is not cheering. The unemployment rate for African Americans actually increased from 16.2 percent to 16.5 percent. The unemployment rate for black men rose from 16.6 percent to 17.6 percent. Nearly 44 percent of black teenagers who were looking for work could not find a job.

Higher education remains the best way to combat unemployment. Less than 5 percent of Americans with a college degree were unemployed in January.

Read more...

EEOC discrimination complaints near record high, while discrimination findings near record lows...

Employment discrimination charges were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2009 at near record levels. According to the EEOC's annual report, the agency received 93,277 private sector discrimination charges in 2009, the second highest number in 20 years. The Performance and Accountability Report FY 2009 (PAR) noted that the number of private sector charges is projected to exceed 100,000 by the end of fiscal year 2010.

According to the EEOC's fiscal year data, which ended Sept. 30, 2009, three types of discrimination complaints increased over the last year. Disability complaints increased by 10 percent, from 19,453 to 21,451. National origin complaints increased 5 percent, from 10,601 to 11,134. Religious discrimination claims increased 3 percent, from 3,273 to 3,386.

The number of charges alleging age-based discrimination reached the second-highest level ever - 22,778 compared to the 2008 record high of 24,582.

Continuing a decade-long trend, the most frequently filed charges with the EEOC in 2009 were complaints alleging discrimination based on race-based discrimination (36 percent), retaliation (36 percent), and sex-based discrimination (30 percent).

But more interesting and far more illuminating are the statistics on findings of reasonable cause. According to EEOC data released on their website, very few cases ever see the light of day.

Of the 68,710 complaints that were filed on the basis of violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights act, only 188 resulted in lawsuits. (That's 0.27%)

Of the 11,948 sexual harassment claims resolved by the agency, once you subtract the settlements, withdrawals and administrative closures, 11.6% were found to have probable cause - 88.4% rejected

Of the 2,958 religious discrimination charges resolved by the agency, once you subtract the settlements, withdrawals and administrative closures, 7% were found to have probable cause - 93% rejected

Of the 31,129 racial discrimination charges resolved by the agency, once you subtract the settlements, withdrawals and administrative closures, only 5% were found to have probable cause - 95% rejected

And of the 20,529 age discrimination charges resolved by the agency, once you subtract the settlements, withdrawals and administrative closures, only 4.5% were found to have probable cause - 95.5% rejected

Now why is that you ask? Is this a sign of hope? Does this mean that we are actually becoming that post-racial society we'd heard so much about? Well, I would suggest an alternative theory.

I believe that the numbers are indicative of an attempt to eliminate discrimination by fiat. Lawmakers, politicians, business interests, and lobbyists are quickly making discrimination a thing of the past by changing the rules and making it impossible to prove... Consider the following:

In Gross Vs. FBL Financial Services, the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in an age discrimination case must present 'direct evidence' (which is essentially the equivalent of a smoking gun) of discrimination before the burden shifts to the employer to show that their actions were not discriminatory. Now typically in a discrimination case, the employee knows how they were treated, what was done to them, and what was said, and they then infer that a discriminatory act has taken place. Plaintiffs present their case along with prima facie evidence of discrimination, and then the burden shifts to the employer to refute the allegations. This is a necessary structure because generally speaking, the 'direct evidence' (statements of intent to discriminate, documents, notes or records showing intent) would be in the possession of the employer and would only be available to the plaintiff through the discovery process. But in Gross Vs. FBL, the Supreme Court changed all that... They ruled that unless the plaintiff can produce 'direct evidence', the employer shall have no burden of proof and the case may be dismissed by summary judgement without discovery.

In Iqbal Vs. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court ruled that even if an entity or agency takes an action that has a discriminatory outcome, their actions may be protected unless a plaintiff can show that the discriminatory outcome was the primary or the "but for" reason the initial action was taken. In other words, if I walk into my place of business and fire all the Albanians because I simply don't like Albanians - That would constitute an act of discrimination. But if I walk into my place of business and fire all the Albanians because I'm trying to purge my company of theives and liars, and to accomplish that I fire all of my Albanian staff - That might actually be protected because their Nationality was not the primary reason for their termination.

In Philips Vs. the Ford Motor Company, the Courts ruled that even though Mr. Philip was able to show that he was passed over for promotions and was the subject of unfair treatment; Even though Mr. Philips was able to show that other Black employees at the Company were also passed over for promotions and were treated similarly; And even though there were members of the Company's Senior Staff who were willing to corroborate Mr. Philips claims, Mr. Philips case did not meet the legal standard for a discrimination claim. You see, in discrimination cases there is often a requirement that the plaintiff be able to show that other 'similarly situated' employees are receiving the same or similar treatment. In this case the Courts decided that the term 'Similarly Situated" could have alternative interpretations and that the Judges should have the discretion to decide which to apply. In this particular case, the judges decided that although the other Black employees were receiving the same or similar treatment, since they weren't in Mr. Philips actual department, on his shift, and serving under his supervisor, they would not be considered as "similarly situated" and therefore while they noted that Mr. Philips was the recipient of disparate treatment, they denied his claim of discrimination.

and there are many, many others...

Our Legal Protections are in crisis. Many of the laws and protections that the previous generations fought so hard to secure are being stripped away by courts hostile to Civil Rights and Political gamesmanship in Washington.

Quite frankly, many of us in the Civil Rights community were asleep at the switch when the term "Similarly Situated" was redefined, when the term "Strict Scrutiny" was redefined, when the burden shifting framework for discrimination cases was redesigned in age discrimination cases, when "direct evidence" became a requisite for avoiding summary judgement, when "disparate impact" protections were openly challenged (Justice Scalia even commented that he wishes he could review the original language in the Civil Rights act), when the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was directed to shift its focus towards Religious Discrimination, when Public Defenders offices across the country were (and still are) severely underfunded, and when the EEOC was understaffed and underfunded.

We now sit at an interesting nexus: One the one hand we have a record number of American's coming forward, filing claims, and seeking redress. And on the other hand we have investigatory agencies stymied by years of flat funding and staffing cuts, radical decision-making by activist courts, and a Society seemingly too eager to declare "mission accomplished" on issues of race and discrimination, when the work clearly is not finished...

Read more...

Civil Rights Organizations come together to call for a stronger Federal response to the jobs crisis

With unemployment among blacks at more than 15 percent, and in light of new unemployment data released for October 2009, the NAACP joined with several other groups this week to call on President Obama to do more to create jobs.

The organizations, including the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, the AFL-CIO, the Center for Community Change, the National Council of La Raza, and the Economic Policy Institute, stated that they believe the president’s $787 billion stimulus program has not gone far enough to fight unemployment. In response to the crisis, the groups held a panel discussion this week to raise awareness and suggest potential solutions for policymakers. They also issued a joint statement advocating for strong congressional action to address the crisis, starting with extending unemployment benefits, food stamps, and COBRA to meet the needs of the significant number of unemployed people facing a long road to recovery.

“It’s time for us to really stoke this issue up,” said Hilary O. Shelton; NAACP Senior VP for Advocacy and Policy. “We’re not so much trying to convince him to do something he doesn’t want to do, but urging him to move forward on an issue we have agreement on.”

Currently, nearly 16 million Americans are unable to find employment and another nine million are only able to find part-time employment, according to the EPI. And finding jobs is increasingly difficult – there are over six job seekers for each available job opening. The situation is even more difficult for workers of color. The unemployment rate for blacks has jumped to 15.7 percent, from 8.9 percent when the recession started 23 months ago. That compares with 13.1 percent for Hispanics and 9.5 percent for whites. The black unemployment rate has climbed above 20 percent in several states, reaching 23.9 percent in Michigan and 20.4 percent in South Carolina.

"Make no mistake – this is the civil rights issue of the moment," said LCCR President and CEO Wade Henderson. "Unless we resolve our national job crisis, all of our other priorities – from reforming health care and fixing our broken immigration system, to stemming home foreclosures and expanding economic opportunity for all Americans – are in real jeopardy."

Read more...

HR 3149 Aims to end the use of Credit Reports in Hiring

At the Centennial Convention of the NAACP, the delegates unanimously passed a resolution opposing the use of Credit Reports in Employment and calling for all NAACP units to partner with like-minded organizations to bring an end to this practice.

Resolution: Use of Credit History in Employment
Therefore be it resolved, that the NAACP stands opposed to the use of credit reports in hiring as a form of economic discrimination, and will partner with allied organizations to conduct educational forums as well as working through the local, State, and Federal legislative process to make sure that such practices are prohibited.

House Bill 3149; the Equal Employment for All Act (HR3149) would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to generally prohibit the use of consumer credit checks in employment/hiring decisions.

Under the bill, employers would be prohibited from using information in a consumer report or investigative consumer report pertaining to an employee or applicant’s creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity when making hiring determinations or taking adverse employment actions as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Notably, this prohibition would apply even if the employee or applicant consents to such use. The bill would establish exceptions when: (1) the employee or applicant applies for, or currently holds, employment that requires national security or FDIC clearance; (2) the employee or applicant applies for, or currently holds, employment with a state or local government agency that otherwise requires use of a consumer report; (3) the employee or applicant applies for, or currently holds, a supervisory, managerial, professional, or executive position at a financial institution; or (4) otherwise required by law.

The law is necessary because disaggregated credit data shows graduated disparities in credit scoring between racial and socio-economic groups. The use of credit checks for the purposes of making employment decisions would have a disparate impact on minorities and those from lower socio-economic classes, who are statistically likely to have lower credit scores than their more affluent counterparts. Furthermore, there is no reliable data that indicates that Credit History is any indicator of future job performance.

"There is no social science to support the assumption that credit histories reliably predict success on the job…this law would help to stop the vicious cycle of those who seek new job opportunities to pay their creditors but cannot obtain work because they lost a job and have been unable to pay their creditors," said Audrey Wiggins, director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law's Employment Discrimination.

The Bill is currently in the House Committee on Financial Services.

Read more...

NAACP announces new Diversity Job Board

The NAACP and Personnel Strategies Inc. (PSI) announced today a partnership to produce a diversity job board to be featured at www.naacp.org. The job board, entitled www.NAACPJobFinder.com, promotes career opportunities to NAACP members and visitors from across America. The www.NAACPJobFinder.com will showcase opportunities from a cross section of industries and locations.

“The NAACP job board addresses our principal objective to ensure political, social and economic equality for all citizens. It also provides a more comprehensive approach to providing racially diverse, qualified job seekers access to a broad range of the nation's top employers,” said NAACP President Benjamin Jealous. “With so many Americans out of work we hope we can provide new resources and opportunity.”

The NAACP boasts one of the Nation’s most diverse and active membership websites. It is anticipated that during the 2009 NAACP Centennial, a large number of visitors will be registering and searching the positions at www.NAACPJobFinder.com. For employers, this represents an exception branding opportunity to promote their diversity initiatives and acknowledge the NAACP Centennial.

“PSI has worked with the NAACP producing NAACP Diversity Job Fairs since 1993. Providing a state of the art job board technology that reaches a truly diverse market of motivated and socially active candidates should be a great tool for employers. We will also be reaching thousands of candidates who each year attend a NAACP Diversity Job Fair,” says Mike Hall, President of PSI. “We like the online and onsite solutions being offered by this partnership.”

2009 marks the NAACP Centennial Celebration. The NAACP Headquarters, based in Baltimore, MD, along with its 1,700 units nationwide, will host celebrations and observances throughout the year ending with the Annual Convention in New York on July 11-16. The NAACP National Convention Centennial Celebration Diversity Job Fair will be sponsored as part of the Convention on July 14-15, 2009 at the New York Hilton.

PSI is the nation’s leading producer of Diversity Job Fairs. In 2009, PSI Job Fairs will be produced in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. PSI is the only job fair producer selected by the NAACP to brand its events as NAACP Diversity Job Fairs.

Read more...

Save the date -- Know your 'Civil' Rights forum: Employment 101

This is a twist on the standard "Know Your Rights" forum. We will be dealing specifically with issues related to employment. Wrongful Termination? Hostile Work Environment? Progressive Discharge? Progressive discipline? "Right to Work"? etc... Come out and join our discussion about your rights in employment and learn how to protect yourself in these tough economic times...

Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009

Time: 3:00pm - 5:30pm

Location: Wichita Branch NAACP Main Office

Street: 829 N Market St

City/Town: Wichita, KS

Phone: (316) 219-6996

Email: wichita.naacp@gmail.com

Read more...

Veterans Upward Bound Position Announcement: Curriculum Coordinator

Wichita State University is seeking applicants for the position of Curriculum Coordinator, Veterans Upward Bound. For a complete list of responsibilities, required and preferred qualifications and the application process, please visit HRE Partners click on Professional Vacancies and apply on line. This is a full-time position.

A complete application package must be submitted electronically, via Kansas HRePartners, by Monday, 18 May 2009.

QUALIFICATIONS: Bachelor's degree and 3 years work experience. Knowledge or experience in curriculum development. Computer Skills must include: Microsoft Office Software (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, Publisher and Outlook). Have instructional and tutorial experience. Have successful experience working with diverse populations. Have a commitment to diversity.

PREFFERRED: Degree in Education or Social Sciences. Have previous experience working with federally funded programs or non-profit organizations, background or experience in dealing with problems facing Veterans, low-income or first generation college students. Have supervisory experience. Have strong written and oral communication skills.

1) Complete the on-line application form.

2) Cut and paste your cover letter and resume; Include the names and telephone numbers of at least three (3) Professional references.

The combination of letter and resume must clearly demonstrate that the candidate meets or exceeds all of the stated qualifications (for stated qualifications see posting at HRePartners.com).

To ensure full consideration, the on-line application must be completed by May 18, 2009. Offers of employment are contingent upon completion of a satisfactory criminal background check as required by Board of Regents policy.

For technical assistance, contact The Office of Human Resources at 978-3065.

Wichita State University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. Women, minorities, the disabled, and veterans are encouraged to apply.

Read more...

NAACP Legal Defense Fund Files Brief In Wal-Mart Gender Discrimination Suit

On Friday, March 13th, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) filed a friend of the court brief supporting the plaintiffs in a historic, nationwide sex-discrimination lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart Stores. The lawsuit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., was originally filed in 2001 on behalf of a class of approximately 2 million women affected by Wal-Mart's discriminatory employment practices, making it one of the largest civil rights class action lawsuits in history. The case is currently being reheard en banc by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

A federal district court certified the lawsuit as a class-action in 2004, and the original panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2007. Last month, the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case before a group of eleven judges, with oral argument set for late March. Wal-Mart has asked the Ninth Circuit to hold that victims of employment discrimination can only sue as a class if they give up their right to monetary damages, and instead seek only injunctive and declaratory relief.

LDF argued in its friend-of-the-court brief that accepting Wal-Mart's position is not only bad policy, but also would be a radical rewriting of civil rights law. "When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the clear intent was to expand protections against workplace discrimination by extending the remedies available to victims of intentional discrimination to include money damages. Wal-Mart is attempting to undermine those protections," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel.

LDF was joined on the brief by a broad coalition of civil rights non-profits, including the Asian American Justice Center, Latino Justice, PRLDEF, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Legal Momentum, NAACP, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law Center, and Women Employed.

Read more...

The Wichita Branch Releases its 2009-2010 Goals & Priorities

On January 10th, the Wichita Branch NAACP held it's annual strategic planning session wherein we set our goals and priorities for the 2009 - 2011 term. We began with a review of the goals and priorities we'd set for 2008 and a critical analysis of our 2008 Branch activities. We then worked collaboratively to establish new goals and priorities for each committee of the branch.

Click HERE for a copy of the report

Tech Tags: NAACP Wichita+NAACP Centennial

Read more...

Video: President Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law

On only his tenth day in office, President Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law.



The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a true Civil Rights bill. It is widely characterized as a bill designed to close the gender-gap in corporate pay. And while it is certainly a powerful tool to address that disparity, it's applications are even more far-reaching.

In the precedent-setting Ledbetter case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 180-day statute of limitations on filing a pay discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 begins to run when the original discriminatory decision is made, regardless of whether the discrimination continues beyond the 180-day period. In other words, a complainant would have to file a grievance within 180 days of their very first paycheck that was paid at a discriminatory wage.

This act, now signed into law by the President, has restored the "pay-check accrual" interpretation of the Civil Rights Act which ensures that employees who can prove pay discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability can once more seek redress as long as the discrimination continues.

Thank you Lilly Ledbetter for not giving up, and for  your courage in continuing to fight for fairness even after the Supreme Court denied your claim. And thank you President Obama for making this the very first bill that you signed into law; one that works toward the establishment of a level playing field by allowing for the fair redress of grievances...

Tech Tags: Ledbetter Fair+Pay+Act Civil+Rights President+Obama

Read more...

New Data exposes dramatic Racial Discrimination in US Advertising Industry

NAACP, MEHRI & SKALET ANNOUNCE MADISON AVENUE PROJECT

NEW YORK, NEW YORK --- An exhaustive new study of America's advertising industry released today has found dramatic levels of racial discrimination throughout the industry. Bias against African-American professionals was found in pay, hiring, promotions, assignments, and other areas.

The study was initiated by a coalition of legal, civil rights, and industry leaders who created the Madison Avenue Project. The Project was created in 2008 to address advertising's deep-rooted racial bias and today, Cyrus Mehri, Project leader and prominent civil rights lawyer, called the findings "absolutely astonishing in this day and age." Angela Ciccolo, Interim General Counsel of the NAACP, another project partner, commented that "the time has come to stand up to change this industry."

Overall, the findings reveal that racial discrimination is 38 percent worse in the advertising industry than in the overall U.S. labor market, and that the "discrimination divide" between advertising and other U.S. industries is more than twice as bad now as it was 30 years ago.

Specific findings include:

• Black college graduates working in advertising earn $.80 for every dollar earned by their equally-qualified White counterparts;
• About 16 percent of large advertising firms employ no black managers or professionals, a rate 60 percent higher than in the overall labor market;
  
• Black managers and professionals in the industry are only one-tenth as likely as their White counterparts to earn $100,000 a year;
  
• Blacks are only 62 percent as likely as their white counterparts to work in the powerful "creative" and "client contact" functions in advertising agencies;
  
• Eliminating the industry's current black-white employment gap would require tripling its Black managers and professionals.
  

Though employment discrimination has sharply diminished in America in the last 40 years, systemic barriers to equality in the $31 billion a year advertising industry have not budged. In 1978, for example, the New York City Human Rights Commission found that limited minority employment "was not simply the result of neutral forces, but emanated directly from discriminatory practices." Those practices continue today.

The study found the primary source of discrimination to be agencies' implicit assumption that the cause of Black under-representation is a shortage of 'qualified' Black job seekers. In reality, the problem is not a shortage but a "persistent unwillingness by mainstream advertising agencies to hire, assign, advance, and retain already-available Black talent."

Moreover, the study found, the industry's response to long-running charges of discrimination has consisted of "token efforts. The industry's primary response has been extremely modest expansions in training and entry-level hiring." At today's rate of progress, Black numbers among advertising managers and professionals will not reach their expected level for another 71 years.

An appropriate response, the study concluded, "will require fundamentally transforming the workplace culture of general market advertising agencies." Specifically, agencies must root out the stereotypes that make race, not ability, determine employment potential; halt the "buddy system," in which personal relationships and social comfort often count for more than job performance; and eliminate the assumptions that racial minorities can't succeed in non-ethnic markets.

The Madison Avenue Project is led by the NAACP and attorney Cyrus Mehri, of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, who has won several multi-million dollar discrimination settlements against such corporations as The Coca-Cola Company, Morgan Stanley and Texaco Inc.; with the cooperation of Sanford Moore, a former advertising executive, current New York City talk radio co-host, and longtime advocate for racial parity in advertising.

"Today we are sending a message to the advertising industry: this conduct is unacceptable and must change," Mehri said today.

"I have witnessed first-hand the mendacity and machinations that have kept African-Americans invisible on and to Madison Avenue for over four decades," Moore said. "Madison Avenue has created and perpetuated a 'separate and unequal' marketing paradigm which is reflected in their advertising, their workforce and among their executive ranks. Even though our dollars provide the profits, the industry is still afraid of the dark."

"The Madison Avenue Project is designed to send a special wake up call to the advertising industry," Ciccolo added. "It's time for Madison Avenue to wake up to civil rights and to the meaningful inclusion of African Americans in this highly segregated industry."

The NAACP also plans to circulate the report not just to its members, but also to Fortune 100 companies to urge them to stop aiding and abetting widespread discrimination by this industry.

The study, entitled "Research Perspectives on Race and Employment in the Advertising Industry," was conducted by a leading research firm, Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants. 

CLICK HERE for a complete copy of the Report!!!

Contact: Deb Colbert, 301-565-5329 (O) or 301-332-0813 (C), daccomm@aol.com;
Richard J. McIntire, NAACP Communications Department, 202-463-2940 x1021, rmcintire@naacpnet.org

Read more...

The Wichita NAACP 2008 Year End report is now available

The 2008 Year End report for the Wichita Branch NAACP, detailing branch activities in the areas of Education, Civil Rights Enforcement, Voter Empowerment, Community Empowerment, Legal Redress, Health, Branch Administration, and Advocacy Training, is now available to the public.

CLICK HERE for a copy of the 2008 Year End Report  

Read more...

The Employee Free Choice Act, Peter Kirsanow, and the NAACP

I came across an article in the National Review on the Employer Free Choice Act, written by Peter Kirsanow of the US Commission on Civil Rights. Longtime readers of the blog may remember that I had written previously about Peter Kirsanow's reappointment to the Civil Rights Commission HERE wherein I noted that:

Commissioner Kirsanow was chosen to serve as a federal Civil Rights watchdog, not because of his Civil Rights background or work in the field, in fact, quite the opposite is true. Kirsanow was a partner with the Cleveland, Ohio law firm of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan, and Aronoff LLP which focused on representing management in employment-related litigation. Placing Kirsanow on the Civil rights Commission is analogous to placing a tobacco lobbyist in the Office of the Surgeon General.

Now Commissioner Kirsanow has written a predictable screed in opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act or EFCA. It is predictable in that Mr. Kirsanow's record is distinguished more by its dogged fidelity to ideology than by its demonstration of fair judgment or commitment to principle. In fact, when President Bush used a recess appointment to name Kirsanow to the National Labor Relations Board, Senator Ted Kennedy issued a statement reading in part, "Mr. Kirsanow's record as a Member of the Commission on Civil Rights raises serious doubts about his fitness for high office and his commitment to fairness for all Americans."

In fact, the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs reported that when Peter Kirsanow was appointed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights by President Bush in December 2001, the Commission’s Chairperson told the White House that it would take federal marshals to seat Mr. Kirsanow. The majority on the Commission fought his appointment all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Now Mr. Kirsanow has taken his opposition to the EFCA public. His argument rests squarely with the provision that would allow workers to unionize by majority sign-up. He postulates that by affording workers the option of using the majority sign-up process, the secret ballot election process would become a thing of the past. And that if that happened workers rights would be infringed upon because they would be forced to make public declarations concerning the desire to or not to unionize...

Mr. Kirsanow then (ironically) goes on to evoke civil rights imagery in a couple homespun hypothetical narratives designed to recast his union-busting effort as some noble or historically relevant cause.

"Four decades ago, black voters in the Deep South and other regions of the country were subject to threats, intimidation and harassment for attempting to cast a secret ballot." Kirsanow wrote...
Oh. No. You. Didn't.

Silly Rabbit...

It actually comes as little surprise that Commissioner Kirsanow would argue against a bill intended to allow workers to unionize without employer intimidation.

The EFCA is a bi-partisan bill, introduced in the House by Rep. George Miller with 233 co-sponsors, and introduced in the Senate by Senator Ted Kennedy and 46 co-sponsors, which would allow workers to form Unions through majority sign-up, help employees secure labor contracts with their employers in a reasonable amount of time through negotiation, mediation, or binding arbitration, and toughen penalties against employers who violate workers rights.

The bill passed the House by a 241-185 margin but was stalled in the Senate by a cloture motion and remanded back to the House Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions where it sits alongside the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Employment non-Discrimination Act, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, and a hundred other acts and resolutions that have no scheduled hearings.

The NAACP supports the Employee Free Choice Act. We recognize that union workers currently earn 26% more in median weekly wages than non-union workers; unionized women earn 31% more than their non-union counterparts, and black union workers earn 29% more than non-union African Americans. Furthermore, 75% of union workers have health benefits, compared to 49% of non-union workers. 69% of union workers have short-term disability coverage, compared to 30% of their non-union counterparts. Finally, 82% of union workers get life insurance, compared with 51% of non-union workers.

The impact of unions – ensuring that all working Americans are treated well and share in the prosperity – cannot be overstated. Despite the continuing strength and advocacy power of unions, however, some employers continue to treat workers poorly, not paying them a fair wage or providing them with necessary benefits: the purchasing power of workers’ wages is 5% below where it stood 30 years ago. CEO pay has continued to rise and is currently more than 1,000 times the earnings of the average worker. The richest 13,000 US families have nearly as much income as the poorest 200 million combined. And some employers continue to fight the legitimate organization of unions. 70% of American employers in manufacturing threaten to close the plant if workers choose a union. Furthermore, in the 1950’s, when 30% of workers belonged to unions, only a few hundred workers suffered retaliation for trying to organize a union; in 1969, the number or workers suffering retaliation was just over 6,000 and by the 1990’s more than 20,000 workers each year were victims of discrimination when they tried to organize a union.

Now because the motion for cloture failed, the bill is essentially dead unless either 9 Senators change their votes which seems unlikely for this lame-duck session. However, it is very likely that we will see this bill, along with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, resurface in a slightly modified form in the next Congress.

Read more...

President K Myles discussing Wrongful Terminations

This is a brief video detailing our efforts to address Wrongful Terminations in Kansas through Legislative Advocacy...

Read more...

The Senate stalls the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act with a procedural maneuver!

It was supposed to be a victory of both symbol and substance. Today, on Equal Pay Day, the Senate would take up HR2831/S1843 - the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This bill, which has already passed the House, would re-align the language and intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with regard to ending discrimination in payments and salaries.

Under current law, Equal Pay protections are only enforceable if an individual files a complaint of discrimination within 180 days of the original discriminatory decision or act. Meaning, if you were to start a new job today, and I as your employer decided to pay you a lower salary because of your age, gender, race, or some other irrelevant factor, you would have to file a complaint within 180 days of your hiring or the statute of limitations would expire and you would lose your legal standing. Notwithstanding the fact that at the time of your hiring, you would have absolutely no way of knowing the relationship between your salary and the salaries of your co-workers.

.

That is precisely what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. The bill bearing her name (HR2831) was written in response to a lawsuit she filed against the Goodyear Tire Company and the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court. Lilly Ledbetter had worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber for 15 years. After discovering that for many years her pay had been 15 percent less than what the lowest-paid male employee in her position had been making, she filed suit. The Court rejected her lawsuit, noting that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission procedures require claims to be filed within 180 days of when the original act of discrimination took place. HR2831 would change the law that was the basis for the Court’s ruling. The bill would make sure that companies can be sued for wage discrimination whenever they issue a paycheck. The bill clarifies for the courts that every paycheck issued at a discriminatory rate shall be considered an individual act of discrimination. Therefore, the 180 day limitation would be recalculated from the date of any check issued at a discriminatory wage.

But when the bill came before the Senate, it was anything but simple.

The Senate version of the bill (S1843) introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy, clearly had the support of a majority of the Senate. However, when the motion was made to consider the bill, the legislators who opposed the bill utilized a procedural maneuver to require a Supermajority or 60+ vote. this was done through the employment of filibuster and cloture.

The filibuster is a Senate practice whereby a single Senator, or his minority party, can block full Senate consideration of a bill or nomination by extending debate on the proposal indefinitely. The resulting "filibuster" can ordinarily be stopped only by a "cloture" (or closure) vote, which requires 60 of the 100 Senators (a supermajority) to vote to end debate, and bring the bill or nomination to a final vote.

The Senators who opposed the bill knew that it had the support of the majority of the Senate, but they also know that they had enough votes to block a Cloture vote. So the motion to consider was made, the filibuster began, followed by a motion for Cloture which subsequently failed. What all of that means is that the bill has now been relegated once more to the proverbial 'back burner'. The Bill didn't actually "fail", rather, the filibuster/cloture maneuvers are 'sleight of hand tricks' whereby Legislators can deliberately block bills, resolutions, & legislation without it showing up on their voting record. In Cleveland where I grew up, we would call that a 'Hustle'. Since they never actually voted yay or nay (because they didn't allow the vote to take place) they are able to secure the interests of big business, yet still offer a 'truthy' assurance that they care about the issues of fairness and equality.

While I was greatly disturbed by the actions of this Senate, I do applaud the efforts of Senator Ted Kennedy and the other 43 co-sponsors of the bill, and I hope that you will continue to push for its eventual passage.

Below, I've posted the published votes on the Cloture motion:

Position YEAs ---56
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Position NAYs ---42
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 2
Hagel (R-NE)
McCain (R-AZ)

Tech Tags: S1843 HR2831 Senator+Kennedy Lilly+Ledbetter Equal+Pay Fair+Wage Senate+Votes Civil+Rights NAACP Wichita+NAACP

Read more...

2008 NAACP Law Fellow Program

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. The principal object of the NAACP is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of all minority group citizens. As part of its mission, the NAACP seeks to enforce federal, state, and local laws securing civil rights and to educate persons about their constitutional rights.

Throughout its history, the NAACP has provided attorneys the opportunity to make significant, historic contributions to the field of civil rights law. Past NAACP attorneys include, Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker-Motely, Robert Carter and Nathaniel Jones. The NAACP hopes to inspire attorneys to enter the field of civil rights law and to provide broad exposure to various strategies utilized by grass roots civil rights organizations.

The NAACP Law Fellow Program is designed to give students who have completed at least one year of law school the opportunity to work for the summer at the NAACP Headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland. Those selected for the program will:

• Work with civil rights attorneys on relevant issues concerning criminal justice, education, housing, voting rights and environmental justice;
• Read and prepare a research paper regarding strategies to advance the civil rights struggle;
• Attend the NAACP National Convention and Continuing Legal Education Seminar;
• Examine and evaluate citizen complaints of civil rights violations;
• Increase opportunities for minority lawyers to obtain judicial clerkships;
• Interact with civil rights leaders and attorney advocates;
• Review and obtain approval for direct action.

Law Fellows will be selected based on a number of factors including: recommendations; interest in civil rights law; and academic performance. Selected participants will be awarded a stipend of $­­­­­­5,000 to offset living and travel expenses while participating in the program. Fellows will be responsible for securing their own housing and transportation for the duration of the program. Fellows may also seek funding from outside sources to supplement the stipend. Based on funding, an additional fellowship opportunity may become available for a law school graduate to work with the NAACP Legal Department.

Questions concerning the program should be directed to Saundra M. Grice at (410) 580-5798. The application is available at http://www.naacp.org/legal/fellows/index.htm or by emailing sgrice@naacpnet.org. A complete application packet shall include:

• Completed application
• Law School Transcript
• Letter(s) of Recommendation (from one or two professors)
• 50-100 word essay describing your interest

By no later than March 20, 2008, please forward completed application to:

Angela Ciccolo
NAACP; Interim General Counsel
4805 Mount Hope Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21215
(410) 580-5792
(410) 358-9350 (fax)

Stefanie L. Brown,
National Director
NAACP Youth & College Division

Tech Tags: Law, NAACP, Current+Events, Current+Affairs, Law+Fellows, Civil+Rights

Read more...

URGENT: Immediate Community Action needed to move the Minimum Wage Bill (SB466) out of Committee

Literally within minutes of posting the information concerning Senate Bill 466 on the Kansas Minimum Wage, we received rumblings from the Capitol Building that opponents of the bill may try and keep it in committee without sending it forward. Holding the bill in that manner is a procedural method of defeating it without a negative vote.

Bills that begin in either Legislative House or the other must be considered and passed by their House of Origin (in this case the Senate) and sent to the other House for consideration no later than Saturday March 1st (also known as the "Turnaround date"). Bills not passed by their House of Origin by that date are essentially defeated for this session and would have to be rewritten and re-introduced the following year. Holding the bill in Committee past the turnaround date would effectively kill it for this session without forcing Legislators to go on record by voting it up or down.

If this bill is going to survive the session, we need an immediate showing of community support! We are asking that all of you who support this cause and this blog to contact the Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee right away and respectfully ask that Senate Bill 466 be passed out of committee THIS WEEK!

The Chair of the Kansas Senate Commerce Committee:

Senator Karin Brownlee (R) D-23

Room Number 121 East

State Capitol -136-N Topeka, KS 66612-1504

(785)-296-7358

HOTLINE: 1-800-432-3924

FAX: (785)-368-7119

EMAIL:brownlee@senate.state.ks.us

Senator Brownlee represents the City of Gardner, City of Olathe, City of Overland Park, City of Spring Hill, Johnson County: Gardner, Spring Hill, and parts of Olathe and Oxford Townships, Miami County: Marysville and Richland Townships

.

.

.

NAACP'ers, Raise the Wage Coalition members, Brother Scroggins and Bias Busters, and all other concerned Community Activists, we could really use your help on this one... A hundred well timed phone calls could be the only thing standing between us and a new minimum wage!

Read more...