discrimination

  • May 18, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Putting aside the North Carolina vote embracing discrimination against lesbians and gay men, the struggle for marriage equality has seen more victories of late than defeats. Today, for example, Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled that same-sex marriages recognized in other states, such as New York or Connecticut, will be lawfully recognized in Maryland. The case is Port v. Virginia Anne Cowan. The Maryland legislature earlier this year also passed a same-sex marriage law.

    But marriage equality, while an important component to equality, is hardly the pinnacle. As Andy Birkey notes for us in an extensive piece for The American Independent, it is still legal for public officials in the vast majority of states to exclude members of the LGBT community from jury service.

    The Constitution, Birkey notes, says criminal defendants are entitled to an “impartial jury,” and the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that jurors cannot be excluded because of gender or race. Sexual orientation and gender identity, however, remain open to discrimination.

    “Federal courts,” he writes, “have consistently declined to prohibit attorneys from openly discriminating against LGBT people during jury selection. And as recently as last year, the U.S. Department of Justice told a panel of judges that it ‘takes no position’ on whether the case law that prohibits attorneys from removing jurors based on race or sex should be extended to cover sexual orientation.”

    Only a few states have taken action to prevent government officials from yanking prospective jurors because of beliefs they are gay or transgender. California is the exception. When former Calif. Gov. Gray Davis enacted a law barring such discrimination, he said “No Californian should be deprived of the opportunity to share in our system of justices simply because they are gay or lesbian.”

  • March 6, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    While a large public school district in Minnesota has taken steps, prompted by legal action, to combat discrimination against LGBT students, the U.S. Department of Education has released information, which perhaps not surprisingly, reveals persistent discrimination against black students in public schools nationwide.

    Reporting for the Pioneer Press, Sarah Horner details the Anoka-Hennepin school district board’s vote, with one member resigning in protest, to “accept a settlement agreement with [Dylon] Frei and five other former and current district students who had filed two lawsuits over a policy requiring staff to remain neutral when the topic of sexual orientation came up in the classroom.” As Horner notes Frei and the other students had repeatedly faced sexual harassment and gender stereotyping. Frei, Horner reports, told a crown outside the school board offices that his peers had repeatedly called him “fag,” and physically harmed him.

    The school board voting 5-1 approved a consent decree that will resolve the students’ lawsuit brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The decree also resolves a separate complaint lodged in Nov. 2010 by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education.

    The consent decree filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota includes a number of requirements that Anoka-Hennepin school officials will have to undertake to ensure they comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bar harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.

    For example the school district, the largest in Minnesota, must retain a consultant to review the district’s policy on harassment, create and implement “a comprehensive plan for preventing and addressing student-on-student sex-based harassment,” and improve “its system for maintaining records of investigation and responding to allegations of harassment.”

  • January 25, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    East Haven, Conn., Mayor Joseph Maturo, perhaps not surprisingly, is displaying staunch support for the city’s police department after the U.S. Department of Justice lodged criminal charges against several of its officers for misconduct aimed at the city’s Latino community.

    As The New York Times reported this morning, federal authorities, after lengthy investigations, have accused a group of East Haven police officers of targeting the Latino community. “They stopped and detained people, particularly immigrants, without reason, federal prosecutors said, sometimes slapping, hitting or kicking them when they were handcuffed, and once smashing a man’s head into a wall,” the newspaper reports. “They followed and arrested residents, including a local priest who tried to document their behavior.” The FBI arrested four East Haven officers yesterday, The Times reports, “on charges of conspiracy, false arrests, excessive force and obstruction of justice over what the indictment described as years of mistreatment of individuals, especially Hispanics, and efforts to cover it up.”

    Maturo (pictured) told The Times that it was “a sickening feeling to have your officers arrested, but nevertheless they’re innocent until proven guilty.” He added that he has “confidence” in the entire Department.

    The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division following an investigation of the East Haven Police Department (EHPD) issued a report concluding that it engaged in discrimination against the Latino community, and failed to take action to stop the misconduct.

    The EHPD “engages in a pattern of systematically discriminating against Latinos by targeting Latinos for discriminatory traffic enforcement, treating Latino drivers more harshly than non-Latino drivers after a traffic stop and intentionally failing to design and implement internal systems of control that would identify, track and prevent such misconduct,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said in press statement. “We found that the pattern of practice and unlawful conduct was deeply rooted in the Department’s culture.”

  • January 15, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Estelle Rogers, Director of Advocacy, Project Vote

    Some good news came out of Washington Tuesday.

    Sound unlikely? That's because the news comes from the STATE of Washington, where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals essentially struck down the state's felon disenfranchisement law because it's racially discriminatory and violates the federal Voting Rights Act.

    The case, Farrakhan v. Gregoire, has been in the federal courts since 1996, when the plaintiffs -- all minority citizens who had been convicted of felonies -- sued the state, claiming that the disenfranchisement law discriminated on the basis of race because Washington disproportionately prosecutes and sentences minorities. They produced some compelling social science research to show that disparities in Washington's rates of criminal investigation, vehicle searches, arrest, bail recommendations, and confinement could not be explained by "legitimate" factors, such as the higher rate of minority involvement in criminal activity. Rather, the court concluded, the state's criminal justice system is riddled with racial discrimination at every stage.

    Amazingly, the state didn't dispute the social science evidence, but merely claimed that, even assuming its validity, it is legally insufficient to sustain the plaintiffs' claim under the Voting Rights Act that the felon disenfranchisement law results in the denial of the right to vote on account of race. The court disagreed.

    So now what?

  • December 18, 2009
    Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez gave a "60-day progress report" to a gathering at the National Press Club hosted by ACS, saying that while strides have been made in advancing civil rights, much work remained to be done. In particular, Perez said that the Division needs to be rejuvenated and refocused, to protect and advance civil liberties.

    "It feels right to me that I should be giving my 60-day progress report to you, the American Constitution Society," Perez said. "When I consider ACS's own description of its mission - namely, to promote the values underlying our Constitution, including individual rights and liberties, and to being a force for improving the lives of all people, I realize how your mission and ours share a lot in common." Watch C-SPAN coverage of Perez's entire speech (right). A transcript of his remarks is here.

    Perez said that in two short months on the job he has learned that too many people are under the notion that a Civil Rights Division may no longer be needed. But while, there has been some progress in the area of civil rights, those advancements should not be cited as proof that all is well for the nation's minorities. Indeed, Perez ticked off a number of stories that one would think could not be a part of the nation's landscape in the 21st century.

    Perez said:

    While last year's historic election marked a triumphant moment in our nation's long, complex and often painful history of civil rights, it was not the culmination of our journey, but rather an important mile marker along the way. I would ask those who believe we have reached the ideal of a post-racial society to consider this: On the night that Americans elected Barack Obama our nation's first African American president, three men on Staten Island reacted to the news by going out into their community to find African-Americans to assault in retaliation. Or consider that while we have a Latina Supreme Court Justice, the first press release we issued during my tenure announced a guilty plea from a Louisiana man who could not stand to have three Hispanics living across the street, and so he drove them from their home with gunshots and then burned it to the ground.