HOUSTON, TEXAS. A $100 million racial discrimination lawsuit has been filed in a Houston, Texas state district court on behalf of hundreds of Black present and former employees of the Houston Community College (“HCC”). The suit was intentionally filed Friday, June 19, 2020– “Juneteenth—the anniversary date that Black slaves in Texas learned they had been freed from slavery two years earlier by President Abraham Lincoln. The lawsuit details a damning list of allegations about what has happened at Houston Community College under the leadership of Chancellor Cesar Maldonado and the Human Resources Director, Ms. Janet May. According to the lawsuit, Maldonado accepted his position in 2014 with a Hispanic “preferential treatment” agenda. The suit contains an actual email chain created shortly after Maldonado’s appointment, which states “Now we [Hispanics] are going to receive preferential treatment.” The suit alleges that since Maldonado’s arrival 90% of the long-time Black professionals at HCC have either been terminated or demoted, while there has been a 50% increase in Hispanic hires and promotions. Shockingly, the suit claims, while 90% of tenured and experienced Black employees have been displaced only 10% of similarly tenured White employees have been displaced.
The lawsuit continues with a disturbing list of tactics used by Cesar Maldonado and Janet May to get rid of Black employees. These tactics include, among many others:
Telling a Black male that a White woman’s word was more truthful than his word;
When a White person complains, believing them, but if a Black person complains doubting them unless corroborated;
“Padding” Black employee personnel files with false complaints to be used later as pretexts for firing them;
When Black employees are accused of harassment, believing the complainant – but if the complaint is made by a Black person, doubting them until HHC can corroborate;
Using the term “transformation” as a cover for getting rid of Black employees; and
Forcing Black employees to take leaves of absence without cause to later use as grounds to terminate the Black employee.
If these allegations are proven in court, HCC is in for a bad day at the courthouse.
Image source: Dolcefino
The named plaintiff in the lawsuit is a 55-year-old Black female, Zelia Brown, who was forced to take a leave of absence when she complained about missing grant money at HCC. She reported that the grant funds had been misused or taken to the federal government, according to the lawsuit. After federal investigators notified HCC officials they were going to investigate Ms. Brown’s allegations, she was immediately told not to return to work and to take a leave of absence. Her locked grant office is said to have been rummaged through while she was on this leave of absence. Although HCC is said to have later asked her to return to work, the return was conditioned on her accepting a false complaint that she had created a hostile work environment and presumably remain silent about the missing grant dollars. Ms. Brown refused to remain silent and filed suit. Tonight, she will speak to the media for the first time.
Zelia Brown is asking the court to approve a class action lawsuit against HCC on behalf of all Black employees who have been terminated or demoted since Maldonado became Chancellor in 2014. It is estimated that the number of class members will be in the hundreds with each member seeking individual damages in the case. Zelia Brown is represented in the lawsuit by Benjamin L. Hall, III, the former Houston City Attorney under Mayor Bob Lanier and former mayoral candidate. Hall stated, “Ms. Brown is one of the more recent casualties of what appears to be a modern-day Jim Crow environment at Houston Community College for Black executives. She is a brave lady to stand up to power and speak the truth. We feel confident there are more victims of HCC’s discriminatory policies who will come forward to tell their stories as well.”
The lawsuit has been filed in the 164th District Court and a copy of the lawsuit as well as the listed exhibits accompanies this press release.
Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee, suffered discrimination at work over her Christian beliefs, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Judges ruled Nadia Eweida’s rights had been violated under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
She took her case to the European Court of Human Rights after BA made her stop wearing a cross visibly.
Judges ruled that the rights of three other Christians had not been violated by their employers.
They brought cases against the government for not protecting their rights but ministers, who contested the claims, argued that the rights of the employees were only protected in private.
British Airways said: “Our own uniform policy was changed in 2007 to allow Miss Eweida and others to wear symbols of faith and she and other employees have been working under these arrangements for the last six years.
“Miss Eweida has worked continuously for British Airways for 13 years.”
Following the rulings, Prime Minister David Cameron said he was “delighted” that the “principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld”, adding that people “shouldn’t suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs”.
And the Archbishop of York said Christians and those of other faiths “should be free to wear the symbols of their own religion without discrimination”.
The other cases involved nurse Shirley Chaplin, 57, whose employer also stopped her wearing necklaces with a cross, Gary McFarlane, 51 – a marriage counsellor fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples – and registrar Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies.
All four lost separate employment tribunals relating to their beliefs and made individual applications to the court, but their cases are being heard together.
Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee, suffered discrimination at work over her Christian beliefs, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled
Nadia Eweida, 60, was banned from displaying her white gold cross at work.
The four Christians claimed their employers’ actions went against articles nine and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protected their rights to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” and prohibited religious discrimination.
Nadia Eweida, a Coptic Christian from Twickenham in south-west London, was asked to leave her job in 2006 after refusing to remove her cross.
An employment tribunal found she had not been subjected to religious discrimination.
BA had already altered its uniform code, prior to the tribunal, to allow symbols of faith, including crosses.
Lillian Ladele was disciplined by Islington Council, in north London, after saying she did not want to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies. Her lawyers said the service could have been performed by other employees who were prepared to carry them out.
The Christian Institute said it was “disappointed” by the ruling, adding that it showed Christians with traditional beliefs about marriage were “at risk of being left out in the cold”.
Gary McFarlane, a Bristol relationship counsellor, worked for the Avon branch of national charity Relate but was sacked for gross misconduct in 2008 after saying on a training course he might have an objection to discussing sexual problems with gay couples.
He said the decision taken by European judges in his case was “a regrettable judgment” for all faiths, not just Christians, and said he would discuss his next move with his lawyers.
Shirley Chaplin, from Exeter, was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for failing to remove a confirmation crucifix on a small chain, which she had worn to work for 30 years.
Following the rulings, Archbishop of York Dr. John Sentamu released a statement in which he said: “Christians and those of other faiths should be free to wear the symbols of their own religion without discrimination.
“Christians are not obliged to wear a cross but should be free to show their love for and trust in Jesus Christ in this way if they so wish.”
He said the Equality Act 2010 “encourages employers to embrace diversity – including people of faith”, adding: “Whether people can wear a cross or pray with someone should not be something about which courts and tribunals have to rule.”
Keith Porteous-Wood, of the National Secular Society, said his organization was “absolutely delighted” about the rulings because it wanted to make sure “we don’t end up with a hierarchy of rights with religion at the top”.
He said the idea that there was a form of ban on wearing crosses was “absolutely risible” because hundreds of thousands of people wear crosses around the UK “with no problem at all”.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said the judgment was “an excellent result for equal treatment, religious freedom and common sense”.
She said British courts had “lost their way” in Nadia Eweida’s case and “Strasbourg has actually acted more in keeping with our traditions of tolerance.”
“However the court was also right to uphold judgments in other cases that employers can expect staff not to discriminate in the discharge of duties at work,” she added.
[youtube tgDNdcPTrHo]
This website has updated its privacy policy in compliance with EU GDPR 2016/679. Please read this to review the updates about which personal data we collect on our site. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our updated policy. AcceptRejectRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
