A step backwards for civil rights

When the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was enacted, it provided the right to damages and to trial by jury in federal employment discrimination, but last months decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise.

The Court’s decision has allowed employers to have workers sign arbitration agreements that surrender their right to sue in court over race and sex discrimination.

While legal experts have said that this could save companies millions of dollars in legal fees, this decision could clearly be harmful to employees and revers workplace civil rights.

By signing the waiver, employees are saying that they in-effect willing to put up with gender and race-based discrimination.

The Ninth Circuit Court decision comes after the San Diego based law firm of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps was sued by Donald S. Lagatree, who had applied for employment as a legal secretary at a the firm’s Los Angeles office.

Lagatree refused to sign the mandatory arbitration agreement, which in summation said that Lagatree would give up his right to sue for discrimination.

The case was heard in a Los Angeles Superior Court, but the judge dismissed the case.

Then, in February 2000, the Equal Opportunity Employment Opportunity Commission sued on behalf of Lagatree.

The Commission argued that the law firm violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 when it rescinded its employment offer to Lagatree when he did not sign the agreement.

The 1991 Act was intended to expand employees’ rights and to increase remedies to civil rights plaintiffs.

The Act was not intended to be overturned and leave employees with few resolution options.

By signing the Civil Rights Act into law, Congress meant to encourage voluntary agreements for arbitration, not mandatory ones.

This recent decision by the Appeals Court, clearly will spark the fear among job seekers that if they do not sign an arbitration agreement, they will lose out on a work opportunity just as Lagatree did.

If a law firm can do it, what’s to say that another company will not do something similar.

The ruling comes in a pro-employer anti-employee package, siding with big companies, who already have a better track-record in arbitration suits, while plaintiffs, tend to do poorly in arbitration.

Judge Stephen Reinhard, who ruled on the 1998 decision of Latagree’s case, issued a statement disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit Court ruling as follows:

“Today the majority announces precisely the type of callous anti-civil rights, pro-employer decision that Congress condemned when it enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1991.”

What does this decision say about employee protection?

It says they don’t have any. That they could potentially be exposed to hostile behavior and have no recourse. That employers are not held accountable for behaviors long ago deemed unacceptable and possibly illegal.

Why didn’t the Court just overturn the 1991 Civil Rights Act, whose primary purpose was to strengthen discrimination protection for society’s most vulnerable members ­ those who historically have been discriminated against.

This ruling leaves employees out in the cold.

The choice to sign away their rights hold their employers accountable for treating them with basic human dignity and humanity or not have a job is no choice at all, and certainly not one they should have to make in this day and age.

We’ve come too far and made too much progress to turn back the clock.

While discrimination against people of color and women in the workplace has diminished dramatically in recent decades, it still exists and laws against it still must be strictly enforced.

Unfortunately, without the threat of a potential discrimination lawsuit, there are some employers who will discriminate. They must be held accountable.

In its ruling, the Court states:

“If an employer can compel its employees to arbitration, no retaliation would be involved in an employer’s exercise of such right, because an employee opposing such a practice would not be engaged in any protected activity.”

In summation, the Court assumes that if an employee signs the arbitration agreement he or she will not be involved in any discrimination activity. Wrong.

Unfortunately, what the Court seems to ignore is that discrimination does come from the employer.

So what if a company spends money on court fees?

Shouldn’t there be consequences to violating federal law?

Should a victim be left with no options for resolution?

The ruling leaves employers feeling no effects from violating federal law. As long as a company can use its good high-paid lawyers to weasel out the company from paying damages in a legitimate suit, then there shouldn’t be any law that claims it “protects” employees.

If the government is not protecting the employers, the people who put the work out and make it happen everyday, then the Chief Executive Officers and the high paid government officials should get up and do the work themselves.

It is only when the big wigs at the high levels see what their employees do that they will see the reason for employee protection.

A piece of advice to anyone who is looking for a job or who will be looking for one in the near future: Read the employment contract before you sign it.

Do not get caught signing away your rights just because you did not read what you were signing.

Nothing can stop discrimination. But something can be done to hold violators accountable.