Latest news with #EEOC
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Hugley attorney demands reinstatement, $213,000 and apology from councilors who fired him
Scroll to bottom to see full letter. COLUMBUS, Ga. () — An attorney representing former Columbus City Manager Isaiah Hugley has sent a letter demanding that his client be reinstated after being fired on Tuesday. The letter, dated Friday, May 30, was sent to Leslie Hartnett, the attorney representing the six city councilors who voted to terminate Hugley after 20 years as city manager and seven months from retirement. Attorney Scott Grubman claimed Hugley's firing violated state and federal law. He pointed out statements made by Councilor Charmaine Crabb in which she made alleged racist remarks in a sheriff's investigative report on the city's Finance Department. She accused Hugley of 'organized crime' and 'mafia-type behavior.' Crabb made the motion to fire Hugley and is the first signature on the termination notice. 'Less than two weeks after this interview report was released, and after Councilwoman Crabb was called out for this improper, racist behavior, including by Mr. Hugley through counsel, she introduced her unscheduled motion to terminate Mr. Hugley's employment, after over 40 years of employment with the City of Columbus, and 20 years as Columbus' first African American City Manager,' Grubman wrote. 'Councilwoman Crabb's signature is the first to appear on Mr. Hugley's termination letter. The letter claims the termination reasons violated Title VII's prohibition on race-based discrimination and retaliation.' WRBL has reached out via text to the 10 city councilors — Crabb, Byron Hickey, JoAnne Cogle, Toyia Tucker, John Anker, Glenn Davis, and Walker Garrett voted to fire Hugley. They have not made any public comments on the termination. Anker responded late Friday saying 'Council does not comment on personnel matters, and particularly now that Mr. Hugley has publicly threatened legal action against the city, we cannot comment. We refer you to any statements made during the Council meeting and vote to terminate Mr. Hugley.' In addition to Hugley's immediate reinstatement, the letter asks for a written apology, and $213,278.52 in compensation. Grubman claims failure to respond by June 6 will result in an EEOC discrimination charge. The attorney also demanded that all relevant documents and communications be preserved. Hugley-Demand-and-Preservation-Letter-May-30Download Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Miami Herald
4 days ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Trump administration tells state regulators it won't back some discrimination claims
The Trump administration is making it harder for state and local agencies to enforce certain workplace discrimination laws, another step in its efforts to strip away long-standing civil rights protections for minority groups. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the nation's primary regulator of workplace discrimination, pays state and local civil rights agencies to process and investigate many discrimination claims under work-sharing agreements. But in a memo sent to those agencies last week, the EEOC said it would stop paying them for claims involving transgender workers or those based on what is known as disparate impact, which relies on statistical outcomes to prove discrimination. The memo, which was viewed by The New York Times, said the policy was retroactive to Jan. 20, when Trump took office. That loss of federal resources will make it harder for state and local agencies to investigate these claims. Legal experts say the policy is likely to be challenged in courts and fits into the Trump administration's efforts to chip away at civil rights law. 'They are consistently eroding the protections from the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other foundational civil rights laws in this country and undermining the rights of particular communities,' said Maya Raghu, a director at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, an advocacy group. The EEOC declined to comment on the memo, which was dated May 20. While presidents do not have the authority to unilaterally change civil rights law, the Trump administration has used executive orders to chart a new path on enforcement. The memo to state and local agencies said the directive was consistent with two of Trump's executive orders -- one that asserted that the federal government recognizes only two sexes, male and female; and another that ordered federal agencies to halt their use of 'disparate-impact liability.' In workplace discrimination cases, disparate-impact tests are used to determine whether an employer's policy that appears neutral on its face disadvantages a particular group of people. Legal experts say the test is one of the most critical tools for prosecuting civil rights discrimination. 'Disparate-impact theory is a really important mechanism for rooting out discrimination and inequality,' said Stacy Hawkins, a professor at Rutgers Law School who specializes in employment law. The EEOC has emerged as a key enforcer of President Donald Trump's agenda. Under Andrea Lucas, the acting chair appointed by Trump, the agency has already dismissed discrimination cases it previously filed on behalf of transgender employees, and it has investigated law firms for their diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The EEOC allocated $31.5 million to state and local civil rights agencies last year. Those agencies help process about two-thirds of the tens of thousands of discrimination claims the EEOC receives each year. State and city agencies are still required by local laws to enforce claims based on transgender discrimination or disparate impact, but for those that rely on the EEOC for much of their budgets, the policy change will hinder their ability to fully process or investigate these claims. The Maine Human Rights Commission, for example, receives nearly a third of its funding from the EEOC, according to a spokesperson. For bigger states, the percentage of funding tends to be smaller. New York and California receive roughly 5% of their funding from the EEOC, according to officials from those states' agencies. 'We are deeply disappointed that the EEOC has decided that it will no longer support investigations of claims involving discrimination based on gender-identity and disparate-impact discrimination,' New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, a Democrat, said in an emailed statement. The EEOC, established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to enforce anti-discrimination laws, has a long history of bringing claims based on disparate impact, even under the first Trump administration. In 2018, the agency secured a $3.2 million settlement from the railroad company CSX Transportation over strength tests it required as part of its job applications, which the agency said ended up disproportionately excluding women, a protected class under civil rights law. In 2012, the EEOC began processing complaints of gender-identity and sexual orientation discrimination. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that gay and transgender employees were protected against discrimination under the landmark civil rights law. Since that ruling, the agency has processed thousands of such cases, including 3,000 last year. Because of the agency's new policy, the number of such cases that lead to investigations is likely to plummet. Jocelyn Samuels, a Democratic commissioner at the agency until Trump fired her a few days into his second term, said she worried that the EEOC's memo signaled to state and local agencies that they should prioritize the president's executive orders over the Civil Rights Act. The result may lead local agencies 'to de-emphasize or ignore' cases claiming gender-identity or disparate-impact discrimination. Such an outcome, Samuels added, would deprive people of the 'tools that the government can bring to bear in enforcing the law and vindicating their rights.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
New York Times
4 days ago
- General
- New York Times
Trump Administration Tells State Regulators It Won't Back Some Discrimination Claims
The Trump administration is making it harder for state and local agencies to enforce certain workplace discrimination laws, another step in its efforts to strip away longstanding civil rights protections for minority groups. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the nation's primary regulator of workplace discrimination, pays state and local civil rights agencies to process and investigate many discrimination claims under work-sharing agreements. But in a memo sent to those agencies last week, the E.E.O.C. said it would stop paying them for claims involving transgender workers or those based on what is known as disparate impact, which relies on statistical outcomes to prove discrimination. The memo, which was viewed by The New York Times, said the policy was retroactive to Jan. 20, when Mr. Trump took office. That loss of federal resources will make it harder for state and local agencies to investigate these claims. Legal experts say the policy is likely to be challenged in courts and fits into the Trump administration's efforts to chip away at civil rights law. 'They are consistently eroding the protections from the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other foundational civil rights laws in this country, and undermining the rights of particular communities,' said Maya Raghu, a director at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, an advocacy group. The E.E.O.C. declined to comment on the memo, which was dated May 20. While presidents do not have the authority to unilaterally change civil rights laws, the Trump administration has used executive orders to chart a new path on enforcement. The memo said the directive to state and local agencies was consistent with two of Mr. Trump's executive orders — one that asserted that the federal government recognizes only two sexes, male and female; and another that ordered federal agencies to halt their use of 'disparate-impact liability.' In workplace discrimination cases, disparate-impact tests are used to determine whether an employer's policy that appears neutral on its face disadvantages a particular group of people. Legal experts say that the test is one of the most critical tools for prosecuting civil rights discrimination. 'Disparate-impact theory is a really important mechanism for rooting out discrimination and inequality,' said Stacy Hawkins, a professor at Rutgers Law School who specializes in employment law. The E.E.O.C. has emerged as a key enforcer of President Trump's agenda. Under Andrea Lucas, the acting chair who was appointed by Mr. Trump, the agency has already dismissed discrimination cases it previously filed on behalf of transgender employees, and it has investigated law firms for their D.E.I. policies. The E.E.O.C. allocated $31.5 million to state and local civil rights agencies last year. Those agencies help process about two-thirds of the tens of thousands of discrimination claims the E.E.O.C. receives each year. State and city agencies are still required by local laws to enforce claims based on transgender discrimination or disparate impact, but those who rely on the E.E.O.C. for a significant portion of their budgets, the policy change will hinder the ability to fully process or investigate these claims. The Maine Human Rights Commission, for example, receives nearly a third of its funding from the E.E.O.C., according to a spokesperson. For bigger states, the percentage of funding tends to be smaller. New York and California receive roughly 5 percent of their funding from the E.E.O.C., according to officials from those states' agencies. 'We are deeply disappointed that the E.E.O.C. has decided that it will no longer support investigations of claims involving discrimination based on gender-identity and disparate-impact discrimination,' New Jersey's attorney general, Matthew J. Platkin, a Democrat, said in an emailed statement. The E.E.O.C., established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to enforce anti-discrimination laws, has a long history of bringing claims based on disparate impact, even under the first Trump administration. In 2018, the agency secured a $3.2 million settlement from the railroad company CSX Transportation over strength tests it required as part of its job applications, which the agency said ended up disproportionately excluding women, a protected class under civil rights law. In 2012, the E.E.O.C. began processing complaints of gender-identity and sexual orientation discrimination. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that gay and transgender employees were protected against discrimination under the landmark civil rights law. Since that ruling, the agency has processed thousands of such cases including 3,000 last year. Because of the agency's new policy, the number of such cases that lead to investigations is likely to shrink drastically. Jocelyn Samuels, who was a Democratic commissioner at the agency until Mr. Trump fired her a few days into his second term, said she worried that the E.E.O.C's memo signaled to state and local agencies that they should prioritize the president's executive orders over the Civil Rights Act. The result may lead local agencies 'to de-emphasize or ignore' cases claiming gender-identity or disparate-impact discrimination. Such an outcome, Ms. Samuels added, would deprive people of the 'tools that the government can bring to bear in enforcing the law and vindicating their rights.'
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Wisconsin man fired for refusing to use preferred pronouns appeals to Trump administration
EXCLUSIVE: Spencer Wimmer, a Wisconsin man, is asking the Trump administration to intervene after he says he was fired for refusing to use preferred pronouns that conflict with a person's biological sex—forcing him, he claims, to choose between his livelihood and his faith. While the Trump administration has moved to roll back DEI and gender ideology workplace requirements, Wimmer, a devout Christian, argues that private citizens are still experiencing workplace discrimination tied to such policies. Now, after filing a religious discrimination complaint through the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) to the Trump U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), he said he hopes President Donald Trump will do something about it. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Wimmer said that he had worked hard to be a "model employee" during his five years at Generac and was in good standing with the company, having received several positive performance reviews and promotions. He said he expected to have a long, fruitful career at the power equipment company. That is, until he was suddenly pulled into a meeting with human resources and confronted about his refusal to use someone's preferred pronouns. 'Unlawful Dei-motivated' Workplace Discrimination To Be Rooted Out By Trump's New Acting Eeoc Chair Wimmer says that his refusal to use preferred pronouns is rooted in his deeply held Biblical, religious belief that there are only two genders and that a person cannot switch between one and the other. Read On The Fox News App He explained that he had prior experience working with transgender people and even had a good working relationship with one of his colleagues who was transgender. However, after Wimmer had to clarify with HR that he could not in good conscience use his transgender colleagues' preferred pronouns, he was reprimanded for "unprofessional" conduct. According to WILL, the firm representing Wimmer, Generac HR representatives told him that his request to refrain from using transgender pronouns on religious grounds "did not make any sense." Wimmer was issued a written disciplinary action note that stated "refusal to refer to an employee/subordinate by their preferred name/pronouns is in violation of the company's Code of Business Conduct and No Harassment Policy." After an entire month in which he said he felt both targeted and bullied for his religious beliefs, Wimmer was fired from his supervisor role at Generac Power Systems on April 2. According to WILL, he was not allowed to collect his personal belongings and was escorted out of the building. Wimmer described the entire episode as "heartbreaking." The Supreme Court Appears To Side With Parents In Religious Liberty Dispute Over Storybooks "I was asked to choose between my livelihood and my love for God and my beliefs," said Wimmer, adding that it was "very emotional having everything kind of ripped out from under me." In its complaint to the EEOC, WILL argues that Generac violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. WILL asserts that Generac violated Wimmer's rights despite there being no harassment complaints filed against him. Cara Tolliver, an attorney with WILL, told Fox News Digital that she believes his case carries a broader significance that could impact Americans across the country. She said that Wimmer's case puts recent Supreme Court precedent set in a 2023 case called Groff v. DeJoy to the test, challenging the validity of an employer's compelled gender affirmation policy against an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs. "Employers, I think, have kind of become seemingly fixated on a lot of identity politics in the workplace, including the topic of gender identity," she said. "But it's crucial to keep in mind that even where Title VII may provide some protection to employees against workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of a gender identity, this does not supersede or eliminate Title VII protections against religious discrimination and the fact that religious discrimination is illegal." Supreme Court Allows Terminations Of Independent Agency Board Members For Now Wimmer told Fox News Digital that he "never asked Generac to choose between me and then this other individual." "There was absolutely a way for us to work together and have a compromise where we continue to have a professional environment," he said. "Unfortunately, there are individuals and there are organizations and structures in place that won't let you have compromise. The fact that you have these beliefs is unacceptable to them. So, no amount of compromise is possible." In response to Fox News Digital's request for comment, a spokesperson said: "We do not comment on employment matters nor comment on pending litigation."Original article source: Wisconsin man fired for refusing to use preferred pronouns appeals to Trump administration
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Cincinnati police officers sue city, chief alleging bias against White lieutenants
Several high-ranking Cincinnati police officers are suing the city and Police Chief Teresa Theetge on claims the department's leadership is discriminating against White lieutenants in making assignment decisions. The lawsuit, filed on May 19 in federal court in Cincinnati, alleges the city and Theetge discriminated against Capt. Robert Wilson and lieutenants Patrick Caton, Gerald Hodges and Andrew Mitchell by favoring women and persons of color for preferred assignments. The officers say they were skipped over for such assignments, which are generally regarded within the department as career-enhancing and include benefits like take-home cars and additional overtime opportunities. More: Cincinnati expands youth events in effort to engage teens and reduce violence 'The city and Chief Theetge have actively and systemically undertaken efforts to promote, advance, and make promotion and assignment decisions that are preferable to women and minorities, and to the exclusion of White men,' the lawsuit states. Cincinnati spokeswoman Mollie Lair said the city doesn't comment on pending litigation. A spokesperson for the Cincinnati Police Department also declined to comment. The lawsuit is seeking a jury trial and damages, including lost wages and benefits, as well as a court order halting the department's alleged discriminatory assignment practices. According to the lawsuit, while most of the department's lieutenants are White men, women and officers of color were given preferred assignments at higher rates. The civil complaint also cites several instances in which White male lieutenants, whom the lawsuit labels as better qualified, were passed over due to race and gender considerations. In one instance, a district commander requested that Hodges be assigned as the district's investigative lieutenant; however, Theetge chose a Black female officer for the role, the lawsuit states. The officers filed discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2023. They were notified in February of their right to sue. Since Theetge was elevated to the role of chief, 'there has been significant discrimination directed against White males regarding these assignments,' the officers wrote in their EEOC complaints. The lawsuit also claims that a race-based quota system was used to promote women and non-White officers to the rank of lieutenant, with the department's leadership continuing to make assignment decisions based solely on race and gender. A federal judge ruled in 2021 that the department could no longer use race- or sex-based goals in hiring or when awarding promotions. Those goals were related to a consent decree from 1981 that was intended to address discrimination against Black people and women in both hiring as well as promotions. This isn't the first time White officers have filed suit against the department over alleged discriminatory behavior. Earlier this year, the city paid a $95,000 settlement to a White police officer who sued over comments about White people made by her supervisor and colleagues. In 2021, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed by two White Cincinnati police officers who alleged a Black lieutenant was 'vindictive and openly racist.' The officers said the lieutenant discriminated against them and created a hostile work environment based on race and sex. Enquirer staff writer Kevin Grasha contributed. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: White Cincinnati police officers sue city, chief alleging racial bias
