Connecticut Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel Schwartz : Stamford, Hartford New Haven, CT

Attorney John Williams is well-known in this state for his avid representation of various state workers -- particularly state police officials -- in discrimination matters.  Yesterday, he held a press conference to announce that he will be filing a class action lawsuit in a few weeks challenging the hiring procedures of the Connecticut State Police.

The Hartford Courant has the details in an article this morning:

Racism is so entrenched in the Connecticut State Police that basic hiring practices ensure only a few minority troopers will even enter a training class, never mind be promoted in the ranks, an attorney representing a black troopers' coalition said Thursday.  ...

Only candidates who score at least 85 out of 100 on a written test are chosen to continue training, even though the passing score is 65. That practice discriminates against members of minority groups, Williams said.

Public Safety Commissioner John A. Danaher III vehemently denied Williams' accusations and defended the department's hiring practices, saying they are fair and blind to race. He also said he has taken steps since becoming commissioner to recruit more members of minority groups, including reaching out to more colleges and forming a selections unit that is largely minority.

WTNH has this report on the subject, as does the AP.  Because the complaint hasn't be filed yet, it is too early to tell the exact legal theories and arguments that will be used in the case, but it appears to be following a well-worn path of what are known as "disparate impact" cases.

So what is "disparate impact"? Well, when most of us hear of discrimination cases, they are known as "disparate treatment" cases, not "disparate impact" cases. These cases allege that someone intentionally discriminated against them because of a protected class (race, gender, etc.)

"Disparate Impact" cases are something different.  LawMemo has a nice little summary in its blog:

Disparate impact is the idea that some employer practices, as matter of statistics, have a greater impact on one group than on another.

A good example, taken from the first US Supreme Court Title VII case on the topic: When hiring laborers, the employer required applicants to have a high school diploma. The diploma requirement screened out vastly more blacks than it did whites. Therefore, there was a disparate impact based on race, even though there was no intentional discrimination.

The Supreme Court said that once the employees proved a significant disparate impact, the burden shifted to the employer to prove that the diploma requirement had "a manifest relationship to the employment in question."

Federal legislation enacted in 1991 says that if the employees prove that a practice causes a disparate impact, then the employer must demonstrate that the practice "is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity."

The allegations being raised by Attorney Williams are similar. He appears to be saying that the decision to screen applicants based on their score of a written test has a disparate impact on black applicants.  The EEOC has issued some guidance on employment tests that shed further light on the subject:

Moreover, as the EEOC notes, in 1978, the EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures or “UGESP” under Title VII.  UGESP provided uniform guidance for employers about how to determine if their tests and selection procedures were lawful for purposes of Title VII disparate impact theory:

UGESP outlines three different ways employers can show that their employment tests and other selection criteria are job-related and consistent with business necessity. These methods of demonstrating job-relatedness are called “test validation.” UGESP provides detailed guidance about each method of test validation.  

In general, disparate impact cases are typically long drawn out cases that rely, in good measure on statistical analyses by experts.  They are costly and time-consuming affairs.  Thus, don't expect a quick resolution to the claims raised in this new lawsuit.  Indeed, the State Police will likely spend lots of time arguing that the standards it uses are "job related" and "consistent with business necessity".   Who will prevail? Stay tuned....

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Are unions are dying breed? The answer to that question often depends on your perspective.  

As we've seen in Connecticut, if unions are "dying", they are not going down without a fight.

But statistics just released by the U.S. Department of Labor tell a more complete story.  The statistics show a leveling off of the decline in union membership that's been ongoing for the last two decades. 

The percentage of workers who belonged to a union in 2007 was 12.1 percentage, up slightly from the 12.0 percent in 2006.  (For comparison, union membership in 1983 was at approximately 20 percent.)

Indeed, unions can claim a 300,000+ union membership increase in 2007.  The full statistics are available from the U.S. Department of Labor on their website. 

The numbers for Connecticut also tell a noteworthy story:

• In 2006, 247,000 Connecticut workers belong to a union -- or 15.6 percent of the workforce.  This is higher than the national average.
• That number increased slightly in 2007 to 253,000 workers -- also 15.6 percent of the workforce.
• It is unclear from the survey whether this 6,000 worker increase includes the 2600 dealers who voted to unionize at Foxwoods last fall. As readers know, the election results are being appealed now.

For unions, the numbers in Connecticut show a relatively stable unionized workforce and should give them some solace that they are holding their own. And for employers, the numbers are a good reminder that unions still maintain sizable support in the state. 

Unions may be down overall from where they were decades ago, but they remain an important influence in today's workplace. Whether the numbers will decrease over time depends on so many factors -- including the possible passage of the Employee Free Choice Act -- that it would be irresponsible to predict what will happen.

But, the next time you read an article about how unions are going the way of the "horse and carriage", just remember that the statistics don't tell that story -- at least not yet.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, I posted about a working group that Governor Rell had formed to review the workings of the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO).

Today, Hartford Courant columnist Stan Simpson has an interesting column on the same subject.  It's worth a read.  It discussed the ongoing backlog of complaint and the issues that the agency has had with its leadership. 

He also quotes from the current Connecticut NAACP head who laments the fact that the CHRO's top positions are held by white males. 

Now, there's grumbling that the current key leaders — chairman, executive director, legal director, field operations and chief human rights referee — are all white males. The preferred candidate for the deputy director's job also appears to be a white male.

"It's the civil rights community that brought that whole agency into fruition," said Scot X. Esdaile, president of the state NAACP, which supports a thorough review of the agency. "For the [upper leadership] ranks to turn all white is criminal."

Executive Director Raymond Peck points out that about 40 percent of the 100 staffers are non-white, and that about half of the middle managers, including regional directors, are people of color.

"Would it be better if we looked more diverse at the very top? Yes," Peck said. "We want to be as diverse as we can at all levels."

However, credit Simpson with pointing out that, although the CHRO may have been built from the civil rights era, the CHRO's functions of investigating discrimination go far beyond race discrimination today.   Indeed, I pointed out in October that the Annual Report for the CHRO shows decreases in the numbers of employment law claims over the last five years, while some claims (such as harassment) have increased.

According to the report of the types of claims filed in 2006-2007, the statistics show that race discrimiantion employment claims running about equal with gender discrimination claims and not far ahead of age and disability discrimination claims.  Here are some partial statistics on the numbers of claims being filed.

Number of Employment Claims Filed 2006-2007

Age	411
Color	449
Mental Disability	71
National Origin	260
Physical Disability	401
Race	571
Sex	557

Simpson concludes that the best solution may be to "tear it down — [and] rebuild CHRO into an independent, apolitical watchdog that ferrets out discrimination of all kinds and promotes inclusion in state hiring."  Given the numerous attempts to fix the CHRO over the years, you can't blame him for suggesting that the agency work from a clean slate.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The CHRO has issued its Annual report ending for the fiscal year June 30, 2007, and made it available for public viewing. Its full of statistics that show trends in the workplace; such information is particularly useful for human resources personnel and in-house counsel. 

What does it show?

• Employment claims are down nearly 20 percent from a peak in FY 2002/2003.  (1743 for FY ending 6/07 vs. 2211 ending 6/03). 
  
• Notably, despite the theory that retaliation claims are being filed more frequently, that number is virtually identical (507 for 6/07 vs. 516 in 6/03).  However, because the overall employment claims are down, retaliation cases certainly appear to make up a greater percentage of the cases filed.  Perhaps that's why many perceive retaliation cases to be on the "rise". 
  

A few other trends are worth noting as well.

• Sexual harassment cases filed are down substantially by over 30 percent in the last 6 years.  In 2000, 271 cases were filed, while in 2006, just 188 cases were filed. 
  
• General "harassment" cases, however, are up over 100 percent.  In 2002/03, 175 claims were filed, while in 2006/07, 428 complaints were filed. It is unclear whether this is due to a reclassification of the term "harassment" or whether the actual claims are up.
  
• Claims for "terms and conditions" discrimination (in other words, something other than hiring/firing), are up over 10 percent (from 411 to 461, in the last 4 years). 
  
• The numbers of decisions from the Public Hearing Officers is WAY down. In 2002/2003, they issued 67 decisions, compared with just 10 in 2006/2007.  (Most cases are now being resolved at this level by settlement.)
• Yet the number of reasonable cause findings is remarkably consistent (88 in 2002/2003 compared with 92 in 2006/2007) -- again making up a bigger percentage of overall cases filed. 
  

What does this mean? It means that discrimination cases in general are slowing down in recent years.  This can be attributed to multiple factors, including a steady economy and increasing education among employers. Given the other increase in wage and hour claims, it may be that some plaintiff's attorneys are encouraging those claims (where the need to prove intent is not necessary, in some instances) rather than the traditional discrimination claims.

One cautionary note, at the EEOC, the overall number of claims filed INCREASED last year reversing a multi-year decrease on the national level.  Whether this reversal continues or is just a blip, remains to be seen.  Certainly, in Connecticut, we have not yet seen the decline in discrimination claims end just yet. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)