Latest news with #VII
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research faces racial discrimination lawsuits from Black employees
(John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate) Three African American women are suing the Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research in federal court, alleging they experienced racial discrimination while working for the nonpartisan state agency. Barbara Brown, Kendra Drone-North and Sheila Beal all filed separate complaints against the BLR in 2024 — April, May and September, respectively — in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Little Rock civil rights attorney Austin Porter Jr. is representing all three plaintiffs. B. Brown complaint redacted The BLR assists members of the General Assembly with drafting legislation, researching state policies and financial matters and codifying legislation that becomes law, among other things. The three plaintiffs claim their non-Black superiors at the BLR, including Director Marty Garrity, failed to promote them into jobs for which they were qualified and instead hired less experienced non-Black employees, despite the plaintiffs' positive performance evaluations. They also claim the BLR retaliated against them for complaining about the discrimination. The jury trial in Brown's case is scheduled to begin Oct. 6 in U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker's courtroom. Drone-North's case will go to trial Dec. 9 with U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky presiding. U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. is responsible for Beal's case, and the trial is scheduled for June 2027, according to court documents. All three women filed complaints against the BLR with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2023. The plaintiffs claim the discrimination was based on age in addition to race, and they assert that the BLR violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects people from employment discrimination on the basis of 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.' North complaint redacted The BLR, represented by the state Attorney General's office, filed responses to each complaint in which it denied the allegations of discriminatory and retaliatory behavior. Beal and Drone-North were fired from BLR before filing their lawsuits. The BLR's response to Brown's complaint in August 2024 states she was 'currently an employee of BLR.' Brown's complaint alleges that Garrity and other BLR administrators repeatedly told her she had 'not yet met the years of experience qualification' for promotions and pay increases. The BLR admitted this claim in its response but denied the allegation that non-Black employees were promoted without meeting the 'years of experience' standard to which it held Brown. The BLR repeatedly denied in its response to Drone-North's complaint that younger, less qualified white women regularly received promotions the plaintiff sought. The agency admitted in its response to Beal's complaint that an employee who had worked at the BLR for less than a year received a promotion in 'violation of BLR policy.' Beal's complaint states that the other employee had been at the BLR for less than a year, the minimum amount of experience required before a promotion. Beal complaint redacted The BLR also asserted in its responses that sovereign immunity nullifies the plaintiffs' claims. Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that the state cannot be sued in its own courts. Additionally, Brown and Drone-North failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing lawsuits, according to the BLR. Garrity declined to comment on the pending litigation Thursday when reached by email, saying she would 'let the responses speak for themselves.' Megan Markham, a spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin, said in an email that the office 'will continue vigorously defending the case.' While the BLR is a defendant in all three lawsuits, the State of Arkansas is also a defendant in Brown's suit because the Arkansas Legislative Council's executive subcommittee had 'knowledge and willful disregard for Ms. Brown's civil and employee rights,' her complaint states. The executive subcommittee is responsible for overseeing appeals of investigative reports into discrimination complaints against state agencies. Brown filed a complaint against the BLR in early 2021, and the subcommittee met to discuss the issue, as reflected in both Brown's legal complaint and the panel's April 2021 meeting agenda. The panel's May 2023 agenda similarly states that it discussed a BLR 'personnel matter.' Such discussions are not open to the public. Brown and Drone-North both filed EEOC complaints in February 2023, and the BLR hired Little Rock attorney Carolyn Witherspoon to investigate, according to both women's legal filings. 'However, rather than truly investigating the plaintiff's complaint of discrimination, Carolyn Witherspoon looked for ways to nullify the plaintiff's complaint,' Drone-North's legal complaint states. Brown claimed the BLR retaliated against her for 'providing aid and agreeing to be a witness' in Drone-North's complaint to the EEOC. Brown said the BLR used this as a reason to reprimand her; the agency denied this allegation in its response to her complaint. The legislative subcommittee voted to affirm Witherspoon's findings and reject the two appeals at the May 2023 meeting. The findings included that Drone-North's EEOC complaint 'did not have merit,' her legal complaint states. Arkansas panel rejects appeals from complainants against Bureau of Legislative Research Brown was mentioned by name during the public portion of the meeting before the votes, while Drone-North was not. However, the subcommittee was 'concerned about the veracity and the accuracy of many statements made during the investigation' into Drone-North's complaint, said the panel's then-vice chairman, Rep. Bruce Cozart, R-Hot Springs. Drone-North was fired from the BLR the following day, while Brown 'was reprimanded' and experienced 'consequences' later that month, according to both legal complaints. Four months later, the Legislative Council's Claims Review and Litigation Reports Oversight subcommittee was tasked with approving a $15,000 mediation settlement agreement between Drone-North and the BLR over her EEOC complaint, according to documents that have since been removed from the Legislature's website. The subcommittee's Sept. 13, 2023, meeting was canceled, meaning there was no action for the full council to approve later that day, though the matter was listed on the council's agenda. Drone-North's complaint does not mention the potential settlement. 9.13.23 Exhibit J.01 - Emergency Action ALC Claims Meanwhile, Garrity fired Beal in February 2024 after Beal responded negatively to Garrity reprimanding her, according to the legal complaint. Beal claimed the reprimand was retaliation after she filed her second discrimination complaint to EEOC a few months prior. She was fired a month after the death of her son, of which Garrity was aware, Beal's legal complaint states. All three plaintiffs request back pay, compensatory damages, attorney fees and declarations that the BLR engaged in unlawful employment practices. Beal and Drone-North seek re-employment by the BLR; Brown seeks an injunction against the BLR engaging in further discrimination, as well as a formal promotion into the BLR position for which she claims she carried out the responsibilities but did not receive the title or appropriate pay. Porter, the plaintiffs' attorney, said the three lawsuits are unlikely to be combined into a class-action lawsuit, which consists of a group of plaintiffs claiming the same injury and representing others who are not involved in the litigation. Porter specializes in civil rights and employment discrimination litigation. In January, he testified against the eventual Act 116 of 2025, which Republican lawmakers claimed would force public entities to prioritize 'merit' over 'preferential treatment' in contracting and hiring practices. ''Merit,' in a lot of people's minds, means simply white,' Porter told a Senate committee. The state's Republican-led Legislature doesn't seem to 'have any interest' in protecting the state's Black employees, who currently fill 'a large part' of lower-level positions, Porter told the Advocate Tuesday. In 2017, Porter represented Doris Smith in federal court when she alleged that the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration discriminated against her as a Black woman. Smith's allegations were similar to those of the BLR complainants: she claimed the finance department failed to promote and pay her equitably to her white counterparts, retaliated against her for complaining about the apparent discrimination and fired her in 2018 after she filed a formal complaint. A jury ruled in Smith's favor in June 2020, awarding her $223,333.81 in back pay and $108,000 in compensatory damages. She was later reinstated as a finance department employee. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Associated Press
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Supreme Court seems likely to rule for Ohio woman claiming job bias because she's straight
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed likely Wednesday to side with an Ohio woman who claims she suffered sex discrimination from her employer because she is straight. The outcome of the case could remove an additional requirement that some courts apply when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated a way of resolving the case, that seemed to enjoy broad support among his colleagues. 'Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are the same whichever way it goes,' Kavanaugh said. The justices heard arguments in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years. Ames contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames. The question for the justices is that the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit and several other appeals courts covering 20 states and the District of Columbia apply a higher standard when members of a majority group make discrimination claims. People alleging workplace bias have to show 'background circumstances,' including that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group. The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances. Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Geiser told the justices that the officials who made the job decisions did not even know Ames' sexual orientation. But even Geiser didn't object too much to the narrow outcome that seemed most likely. 'Everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally,' Geiser said. His concession prompted Justice Neil Gorsuch to note, 'We're in radical agreement on that today.' America First Legal and other conservative groups filed briefs arguing that members of majority groups are as likely to face job discrimination, if not more so, because of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal court. Lawyers for America First, founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, wrote that the idea that discrimination against members of majority groups is rare 'is highly suspect in this age of hiring based on 'diversity, equity, and inclusion.''
The Guardian
26-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US supreme court to hear straight woman's ‘reverse discrimination' case
The US supreme court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that has the potential to transform workplace discrimination claims and unleash a flood of lawsuits from white people, straight people and men. Marlean Ames has brought an appeal to the highest court claiming that she was passed over for a job and demoted because she is straight. She says she was removed from her position as an administrator in a state agency for youth services in Ohio and replaced by a gay man. Her petition to the supreme court challenges the way that such 'reverse discrimination' cases have been handled in lower courts. Previous rulings have determined that people from majority groups – such as men, white and straight people – have to meet a higher legal bar than those from minority groups in proving workplace bias. Stakes in the case are high. Should the rightwing supermajority on the supreme court side with Ames, 60, as is widely expected, the floodgates would be opened to discrimination claims from an array of majority groups. On the other hand, programs that attempt to increase diversity, equity and inclusion among the workforce could be further battered at a time when DEI is already under sustained assault from the Trump administration. The politically charged nature of the case was underlined when America First Legal, the group founded by Trump's deputy chief of staff at the White House, Stephen Miller, filed an amicus brief with the supreme court supporting Ames's claim. It argued that many leading companies 'illegally awarded jobs, special benefits, bonuses, and other career opportunities to minorities while openly excluding whites (and sometimes Asians), heterosexuals, and males'. Groups opposing the Ames suit have countered that Black people and other minority groups are much more likely to be the subject of bias at work and that reverse discrimination was rare. Ames's case has been brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the 1964 statute that was one of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement.
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Hennessy Capital Investment Corp. VII Announces the Separate Trading of its Class A Ordinary Shares and Rights, Commencing February 6, 2025
New York, NY, Jan. 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hennessy Capital Investment Corp. VII (NASDAQ: HVIIU) (the 'Company') announced that, commencing February 6, 2025, holders of the units sold in the Company's initial public offering may elect to separately trade the Company's Class A ordinary shares and rights included in the units. The Class A ordinary shares and rights that are separated will trade on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbols 'HVII' and 'HVIIR,' respectively. Those units not separated will continue to trade on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol 'HVIIU.' Holders of units will need to have their brokers contact Odyssey Transfer and Trust Company, the Company's transfer agent, in order to separate the units into Class A ordinary shares and rights. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy the securities of the Company, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction. About Hennessy Capital Investment Corp. VII The Company is a newly incorporated blank check company founded by Daniel J. Hennessy and formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses or entities. Although the Company reserves the right to pursue an acquisition opportunity in any business or industry, the Company intends to focus its search for a target business in the industrial technology and energy transition sectors. FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This press release may include, and oral statements made from time to time by representatives of the Company may include, 'forward-looking statements' within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this press release, including with respect to the search for an initial business combination, are forward-looking statements. No assurance can be given that the Company will ultimately complete a business combination transaction. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous conditions, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, including those set forth in the 'Risk Factors' section of the Company's final prospectus for the Company's IPO filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC'). Copies of these documents are available on the SEC's website at The Company undertakes no obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after the date of this release, except as required by law. Contact: Nicholas GeezaHennessy Capital Investment Corp. VIIEmail: info@ in to access your portfolio
The Hill
29-01-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump fires Democratic commissioners at civil rights enforcement agency
President Trump on Monday fired two of the three Democratic commissioners who enforce civil rights in the workplace, extending his purge of diversity, equity and inclusion in the federal government. Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission confirmed their firings to the Associated Press on Tuesday. Both are in the process of finding ways to challenge Trump's decision, arguing their dismissal before the end of their five-year terms undermines the EEOC's independence. 'Removing me from my position before the expiration of my Congressionally directed term is unprecedented, violates the law, and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the BEOC as an independent agency – one that is not controlled by a single Cabinet secretary but operates as a multi-member body whose varying views are baked into the Commission's design,' Samuels said in a statement. 'The President's action undermines the stability and continuity of EBOC's critical work to advance equal opportunity and fair treatment. It disserves both workers and employers, who rely on the EEOC to inform them about their rights and responsibilities, provide guidance about how to comply with the law, and promote accountability when discrimination has occurred. These removals leave the EEOC without a quorum, which hobbles the agency's ability to protect workers from unlawful discrimination.' The EEOC is a five-member bipartisan panel that was created under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Its goal is to protect workers from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability and other protected identity statuses. While the president does appoint the commissioners and the Senate confirms them, their terms are staggered to intentionally overlap presidential terms in an effort to help ensure the agency's independence. Trump has been working to cut federal DEI programs and policies, a promise he made on the campaign trail. But all three Democratic commissioners condemned his executive orders ending DEI practices in the federal workforce and private companies, along with protections for transgender workers. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) blasted Trump for the decision and expressed concerns around the agency's ability to remain nonpartisan. 'Ensuring that the EEOC can carry out its vital work should not be a partisan issue. In the end, President Trump's actions fundamentally hurt workers and undermines the civil rights laws of this nation,' said Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
