Thursday, August 06, 2009

Racial Profiling Definition - ACLU



Racial Profiling: Definition

"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Criminal profiling, generally, as practiced by police, is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations (commonly referred to as "driving while black or brown"), or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband.

Another example of racial profiling is the targeting, ongoing since the September 11th attacks, of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians for detention on minor immigrant violations in the absence of any connection to the attacks on the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.

Law enforcement agent includes a person acting in a policing capacity for public or private purposes. This includes security guards at department stores, airport security agents, police officers, or, more recently, airline pilots who have ordered passengers to disembark from flights, because the passengers' ethnicity aroused the pilots' suspicions. Members of each of these occupations have been accused of racial profiling.

Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.

Defining racial profiling as relying “solely” on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion can be problematic. This definition found in some state racial profiling laws is unacceptable, because it fails to include when police act on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion in combination with an alleged violation of all law. Under the “solely” definition, an officer who targeted Latino drivers who were speeding would not be racial profiling because the drivers were not stopped “solely” because of their race but also because they were speeding. This would eliminate the vast majority of racial profiling now occurring.

Any definition of racial profiling must include, in addition to racially or ethnically discriminatory acts, discriminatory omissions on the part of law enforcement as well. For example, during the eras of lynching in the South in the 19th and early 20th centuries and the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's, southern sheriffs sat idly by while racists like the Ku Klux Klan terrorized African Americans. At times, the sheriffs would even release black suspects to the lynch mobs. A recent example would be the complaint by an African American man in Maryland, who after moving into a white community, was attacked and subjected to property damage. Local police failed to respond to his repeated complaints until they arrested him for shooting his gun into the air, trying to disperse a hostile mob outside his home.

Racial Profiling May Be Hazardous To Your Health

Many racial profiling victims walk away with traffic tickets, but too often for others the outcome of racial profiling is death.

Pennsylvania (Brentwood) - On October 12, 1995, Jonny Gammage, a 31 year-old African American male, was killed after being pulled over while driving the Jaguar of his cousin, Pittsburgh Steelers football player Ray Seals, in a predominately white community. Although police claimed that Gammage initiated the struggle, a tow truck driver said he saw one officer start the fight and the others join in kicking, hitting and clubbing Gammage while he lay on the pavement. Three officers were tried for involuntary manslaughter: John Vojtas was acquitted; Lt. Milton Mulholland and Michael Albert had their charges dismissed after two mistrials. Gammage's family settled a wrongful death civil rights lawsuit against the five officers involved and their police departments for $1.5 million.

New York (Bronx-New York City) - On February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo, an unarmed 22 year-old immigrant from New Guinea, West Africa, was shot and killed in the narrow vestibule of the apartment building where he lived. Four white officers, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss, Edward McMellon and Richard Murphy fired 41 bullets, hitting Diallo 19 times. All four were members of the New York City Police Department's Street Crimes Unit, which, under the slogan, "We Own the Night," used aggressive "stop and frisk" tactics against African Americans at a rate double that group's population percentage. A report on the unit by the state attorney general found that blacks were stopped at a rate 10 times that of whites, and that 35 percent of those stops lacked reasonable suspicion to detain or had reports insufficiently filled out to make a determination. Thousands attended Diallo's funeral. Demonstrations were held almost daily, along with the arrests of over 1,200 people in planned civil disobedience. In a trial that was moved out of the community where Diallo lived and to Albany in upstate New York, the four officers who killed Diallo were acquitted of all charges.

Ohio (Cincinnati) - On April 7, 2001, in the early morning hours, Timothy Thomas, a 19 year-old African-American, was shot to death by police officer John Roach. Thomas had 14 outstanding misdemeanor warrants, mostly traffic violations, including failure to wear a seat belt. According to a city councilman, he was running away, holding up his baggy pants, and scaled a fence, landing in a driveway where Roach was approaching and shot Thomas. He became the fifth black male in the city to die at the hands of police in a five-month period and the fifteenth since 1995. Two nights of protests left broken windows at City Hall and fires around the city. Witnesses reported that following Thomas' funeral, six city SWAT team officers shot pellet-filled bags into a peaceful crowd. Two people hit by the pellets filed lawsuits. Under community and city council pressure, both the public safety director and city manager resigned. Officer Roach was indicted on charges of negligent homicide, and obstructing official business, resulting from differences in his version of events.

Roach was acquitted in a bench trial characterized by the judge's (a former prosecutor) open admiration for Roach, and blaming Timothy Thomas for “making” Roach kill him.

A community coalition, the Cincinnati Black United Front and the ACLU of Ohio filed suit against the city and the Fraternal Order of Police, citing a pattern and practice of discrimination by police, including issuing the type of traffic citations Thomas received to African Americans at twice their population percentage. In April 2002 the case was settled, under terms including the establishment of a civilian complaint review board and the activation of the reporting of collected traffic stop data that had been enacted by city ordinance in 2001. The Department of Justice also intervened and settled with the city, including revision and review of use of force policy.

It is significant to note that research confirms the existence of bias in decisions to shoot. A series of University of California/University of Chicago studies recreated the experience of a police officer confronted with a potentially dangerous suspect, and found that:

  • participants fired on an armed target more quickly when the target was African American than when White, and decided not to shoot an unarmed target more quickly when the target was White than when African American;
  • participants failed to shoot an armed target more often when that target was White than when the target was African American. If the target was unarmed, participants mistakenly shot the target more often when African American than when White;
  • shooting bias was greater among participants who held a strong cultural stereotype of African Americans as aggressive, violent and dangerous, and among participants who reported more contact with African Americans. shooting bias was greater among participants who held a strong cultural stereotype of African Americans as aggressive, violent and dangerous, and among participants who reported more contact with African Americans1.

The stories above and hundreds of others present a compelling argument that not only does racial profiling exists, but it is widespread, and has had a destructive effect on the lives of communities of color, and attitudes toward police.

Asian Racial Profiling

Asians, who, according to the U.S. census, number 10 million, or 4 percent of the population, have been victims of racial profiling as well. Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese American was targeted and suspected of espionage on the basis of his race. Memos by high-ranking FBI and Department of Energy officials acknowledged that Lee was singled out because he was Chinese, and eight similarly situated non-Chinese were not prosecuted.2

In Seattle, Washington in July 2001 a group of 14 Asian American youth were stopped by police for jaywalking, claiming that they were kept against the wall for about an hour. The Seattle Times reported that one officer told them he had visited their country while in the army, and asked them repeatedly whether they spoke English. The paper also reported that U.S. Representative David Wu (D-Oregon) was detained entering the headquarters of the Department of Energy, and repeatedly.

In 2001, the Asian Freedom Project of Wisconsin issued a report that found the racial profiling of Hmong communities there, and included the testimony of adults, as well as boys and girls.

The Garden Grove (CA) Police Department settled a “gang” database racial profiling lawsuit by a group of young Asian Americans who said their civil rights were violated when officers photographed them as suspected gang members based merely on their ethnicity and clothing.

Indian Racial Profiling

Indigenous people ( Native Americans) call it “DWI,” with a new twist: “Driving While Indian.” According to the National American Indian Housing Council, there are 2.4 million Indians (including Eskimos and Aleuts) in the U.S. Indians complain about stops and searches by local police and sheriffs on roads leading to and from reservations.

In South Dakota, widespread reports of racial profiling led to hearings before the state legislature, where Indians testified about their being stopped and searched not only based on race but also on religious articles hanging from rearview mirrors, and regional license plates that identified them as living on reservations.

In June 2002 scores of Indians in the state's Bennett County complained to Department of Justice attorneys, alleging racial profiling at the hands of sheriffs there, including vehicular stops in the absence of reasonable suspicion, the administration of breathalyzer tests without reasonable suspicion, warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, and demanding to see drivers licenses and vehicle registrations while inside bars.

Walking While Black and Brown

Although "Driving While Black/Brown" traffic stops and searches are the form of racial profiling that has received the most media attention, profiling takes place off the roadways as well. Black and Latino pedestrians are regularly stopped and frisked without reasonable cause.

In New York City, the December 1999 report of the New York City Police Departments pedestrian "stop and frisk" practices by the state attorney general provided glaring evidence of racial profiling in the nation's largest city. Blacks comprise 25.6 percent of the City's population, yet 50.6 percent of all persons "stopped" during the period were black. Hispanics comprise 23.7 percent of the City's population yet, 33.0 percent of all "stops" were of Hispanics. By contrast, whites are 43.4 percent of the City's population, but accounted for only 12.9 percent of all stops. Blacks comprise 62.7 percent of all persons "stopped" by the NYPD's Street Crime Unit ("SCU").

In precincts in which blacks and Hispanics each represented less than 10 percent of the total population, individuals identified as belonging to these racial groups nevertheless accounted for more than half of the total "stops" during the covered period. Blacks accounted for 30 percent of all persons "stopped" in these precincts; Hispanics accounted for 23.4 percent of all persons "stopped."

Finally, precincts where minorities constitute the majority of the overall population tended to see more "stop & frisk" activity than precincts where whites constitute a majority of the population: Of the ten precincts showing the highest rate of "stop and frisk" activity (measured by "stops" per 1,000 residents), in only one (the 10 th Precinct) was the majority of the population white. In seven other precincts, blacks and Hispanics constituted the majority of the population. The remaining two precincts were business districts in Manhattan and Brooklyn in which the daytime racial breakdown of persons within the precinct is unknown.

In roughly half of the police precincts in New York City, the majority of the population living in the precinct is white. However, of these 36 majority-white precincts, only 13 were in the top half of precincts showing most "stops" during the period.

"Gang" Database Racial Profiling

In Orange County California, a database containing the names and photographs of reputed gang members appeared to racially profile.3 Latinos, Asians and African Americans were more than 90 percent of the 20,221 men and women in the Gang Reporting Evaluation and Tracking system, but made up less than half of Orange County's population. The disparity attracted the notice of the California Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as well as the ACLU. We asked the county district attorney's office to establish a civilian oversight board to monitor what we saw as problems with the list.

"Bicycling While Black and Brown"

Youth of color have been victims of racially-motivated bicycling stops, " In April, 2001, the ACLU joined a suit against Eastpointe, Michigan , representing 21 young African-American men who were stopped by the police while riding their bikes there. The ACLU argued that the bicyclists were stopped in this predominantly white suburb of Detroit because of their race and not because they were doing anything wrong. In a 1996 memorandum to the Eastpointe City Manager, the former police chief stated that he instructed his officers to investigate any black youths riding through Eastpointe subdivisions. Police searched many of young men and, in some cases, seized and later sold their bicycles. Police logs and reports in Eastpointe have identified over 100 incidents between 1995 and 1998 in which African-American youth were detained.

"Bitten While Black and Brown"

A throwback to the grainy ‘60's black and white television news footage of vicious police dogs attacking peaceful black civil rights protesters is the continued discriminatory use of canine units by police. These dogs, lethal weapons capable of biting at 2000 pounds pressure per square inch, and their handlers have been implicated in a vicious form of racial profiling that has led to legal action:

California (Los Angeles)- The ACLU of Southern California compiled reports on the hundreds of mostly blacks and Latinos who were bitten by Los Angeles Police Department dogs from 1990-1992, charging that the dogs trained to "attack and maul," were routinely sent out in non-violent situations. In 1997, California state highway patrol canine units stopped almost 34,000 vehicles. Only 2 percent were carrying drugs.

Maryland (Prince Georges County) - The Washington Post reported that in May 2001 federal prosecutors charged a county police officer with releasing her police dog on an unarmed Mexican immigrant as part of a pattern of using and threatening the use of the dog on people of color. Despite being the subject of four lawsuits, twice being guilty of making false statements to a supervisor, and five prior instances of releasing the dog on suspects who weren't resisting, and being flagged by a departmental "early warning" system, the officer remained undisciplined in any substantive way. In 1999 the Post reported that thirteen police dog excessive force suits had been filed in Prince Georges circuit and federal courts, in addition to five others that ended in judgement for plaintiffs or settlement. Of the total, ten alleged repeated bites of suspects once under police control, or while cuffed or on the ground.

South Dakota (Wagner)- While not involving the use of physical canine force, the issue reached a new low when school officials and police led a large German shepherd drug dog through classrooms in suspicionless drug searches of Yankton Sioux K-12 students, some as young as six years old. In July 2002, the ACLU filed suit in federal court.

Washington (Seattle) -In 1992 the ACLU alleged that police dog handlers used excessive force on suspects. Dogs were trained to attack and bite suspects regardless of their actions, even against alleged shoplifters, gasoline siphoners and jaywalkers. They also reported that in that year, 40 percent of police dog attacks were against African Americans, and that 91 people had received police dog bite injuries requiring hospitalization.

The following states appear to require independent reasonable suspicion for dog searches: Alaska,4 Illinois,5 Minnesota,6 New Hampshire, New York,8 Pennsylvania,9 and Washington.10

"Shopping While Black and Brown"

The targeting of shoppers/business patrons of color for suspicion of shoplifting by private security and other employees has disproportionately affected both working and prominent African-American women. TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey said she was refused buzz-in entry to a store even after seeing white women admitted and making a second attempt. After calling from a pay phone and being assured the store was in fact open, a third try failed as well (New York City) . U.S, Congresswoman Maxine Waters said she was followed around a store and required to show her key at a hotel, unlike whites who entered before her ( New York City) . Professional basketball player and Olympic medalist Sheryl Swoopes was kept waiting to be seated for almost an hour at a restaurant, while whites who arrived after her were seated before her (Houston, Texas).

Pauline Hampton and her niece, both African-Americans, were shopping at the Dillard Department Store in Overland Park, Kansas , a suburb of Kansas City, with their children. After making several purchases, they went to the cosmetics counter to redeem a coupon. A white security guard accused Hampton of shoplifting, took her shopping bag, and, without consent, searched it, emptying the bag onto the counter. After finding the receipt for the items, he shoved the goods and the empty bag back to her. When she complained about his actions, the guard ordered them to leave, and threatened to call the police and have them forcibly removed. Hampton eventually called her husband to the scene and the situation escalated. They sued, and were awarded a $1.2 million judgement; the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Dillard's appeal.

The store chain, based in Arkansas has also faced dozens of racial profiling lawsuits, claiming harassment and false arrest, in other states including Arkansas, Iowa, and Texas. Evidence produced in one case showed that although 16 percent of its shoppers were African American, 87 percent of the false arrest claims were made by them. In Texas, Dillard settled and paid money to the family of an African American customer who died at a store after being beaten and hog-tied while being detained, and has also settled discrimination suits by employees in Kansas and Missouri.

Other companies sued for racial profiling include Eddie Bauer, Avis Rent A Car, Denny's Restaurant, The Children's Place, and Holiday Spa.

Worksite Racial Profiling

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has had a history of disproportionately targeting ethnic groups of color for undocumented labor violations. Like all law enforcement, INS agents must have sufficient evidence of wrong doing to establish probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest or detain. They may not carry out their duties in a racially or ethnically discriminatory manner. While ethnicity or nationality are obviously critical elements in immigration violations by themselves, without additional facts there is insufficient basis for law enforcement action.

The New York Times reviewed files of INS raids released as part of the settlement of a garment workers union selective enforcement suit against the agency in New York City. The settlement included a summary that Latinos were 96 percent of the 2,907 people arrested in the 187 worksite raids carried out by the INS in the district, fat greater than their representation in the city's legal or illegal population. This occurred even where the INS acknowledged that half the workers were not Latino but Asian, including undocumented immigrants.

And while some raids were based on informant information, 80 percent were initiated by agents who cited as primary evidence subjects' appearance or language without evidence of wrongdoing. Included were skin color, speaking Spanish or English with a Spanish accent, appearing to be of South or Central American descent and wearing clothing “not typical of North Americans.” Such characterizations in major American cities are common to born and naturalized citizens alike.

Undocumented workers were discovered and arrested in all but a few of the reviewed raids, but nearly everyone arrested was Latino.

Suits have also been filed in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Ohio claiming racial profiling by the INS. A federal court in Ohio found violations of the rights of Latinos by that states highway patrol's practice of stopping Latino drivers to question them about their immigration status, including officers even confiscated the green cards of legal migrant workers claiming they were counterfeit. In California, federal courts have found Fourth Amendment violations of Latinos in the stopping of Latinos on the basis of appearance and foreign sounding names.

The Supreme Court has held that INS agents working near the Mexican border may use Spanish ethnicity as a basis for detaining a person, but that it may not be the only basis.

A related issue is the targeting by police, first reported by the ACLU in Florida, of Latinos waiting on public sidewalks for labor employers to appear and select them for work, under the offense of being "visual clutter."

"Voting While Black and Brown"

In Florida, the 2000 presidential election was rampant with claims of racial profiling. The presumption that African-Americans tended to vote Democratic provided the Republican-controlled election apparatus with an easily identified target. The state changed the election's outcome by targeting people of color in a manner reminiscent of the racist poll taxes and literacy requirements of earlier Southern history, or by carrying out facially race-neutral policies that would have a foreseeable disparate impact.

In the months before the election, Florida's secretary of state compiled an “ex-felon scrub list” of names for removal from the voter rolls. It contained thousands of inexact matches as well as names of state residents with convictions in other states that turned out not to be felonies. These actions were destined to have a disparate impact on people of color because of their higher rate of incarceration. And, in an action with similar impact, Florida residents with felony convictions in other states were removed from the rolls, even though courts had previously ordered the reinstating of voting rights to all who would have been eligible to vote in the state of their conviction.

On election day, poll workers in communities of color, following elected officials' instructions to strictly challenge voter eligibility, required photo identification of African Americans while asking for none of whites, and required two forms of identification from Latinos where the law called for only one. Untold numbers, estimated to be in the thousands, were not given affidavit ballots that would preserve their votes pending resolution of any qualification issues. Even the state NAACP president was denied one until she stated her willingness to be jailed over the issue.

Most serious were the hundreds of reports, in African-American communities, of state police harassment of voters at polling places and traffic checkpoints, where they lined up cars, checking driving papers and inspecting vehicles. Racial profiling at its worst, this tactic appeared to be designed to delay and intimidate voters of color.

As to the ballot controversy, African-Americans were 11 percent of the eligible voters, but 54 percent of the rejected ballots; four times more likely to have ballots rejected as white voters; more likely to be voting by punch card, which had three times higher error rates than optical-scan systems; and received almost none of the laptop computers sent to precincts for county voter registration record access.

"Flying While Black and Brown"

Airline passengers of color have long complained of racial profiling. Customs officials at international airports were found to have systematically targeted members of certain racial and ethnic groups, particularly black women, for intrusive and degrading personal searches, based on the false assumption that they were more likely to be transporting drugs.

In March 2000 the General Accounting Office issued a report of customs searches of 102,000 airline passengers in fiscal years 1997 and 1998. It found that black women were 9 times more likely than white women to be x-rayed after a frisk or pat-down search, but less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband. During those years, The Washington Post reported, 90 black women sued Customs after being searched at O'Hare Airport in Chicago, and one Hispanic woman, Amanda Buritica sued after being stopped, handcuffed, placed in a hospital and forced to ingest powerful laxatives. When she was released 25 hours later, no drugs had been found.

A new commissioner, Ray Kelly was brought in and pledged to end the practice. Although he eliminated the vague and often contradictory criteria that the agency used to decide who to stop, and although he reduced the total searches from 44,000 (‘98) to 23,000 (‘99) to 9,000 ('00) data from his own agency indicated that, despite his claims to the contrary, the search rate for African-Americans increased dramatically, from 14 percent ('98) to 19 percent ('99) to 27 percent ('00).

ACLU - About the Campaign Against Racial Profiling



The Racial Justice Program's Campaign Against Racial Profiling fights law enforcement and private security practices that disproportionately target people of color and Muslims for investigation and enforcement. We represent individuals who have been victims of racial profiling by airlines, police, and government agencies, and our present work also encompasses major initiatives in public education, including the creation of a film, bustcard, “Know Your Rights”brochure, and a fact sheet on Highlights in the Fight Against Racial Profiling. Our advocacy also includes lobbying for the passage of data collection and anti-profiling legislation and litigation of egregious airline and highway profiling cases.

What Is Racial Profiling?

Racial Profiling is any police or private security practice in which a person is treated as a suspect because of his or her race, ethnicity, nationality or religion. This occurs when police investigate, stop, frisk, search or use force against a person based on such characteristics instead of evidence of a person's criminal behavior. It often involves the stopping and searching of people of color for traffic violations, known as "DWB" or "driving while black or brown." Although normally associated with African Americans and Latinos, racial profiling and "DWB" have also become shorthand phrases for police stops of Asians, Native Americans, and, increasingly after 9/11, Arabs, Muslims and South Asians.

Racial profiling can also involve pedestrian stops, "gang" databases, bicycle stops, use of police attack dogs, suspicion at stores and malls, immigration worksite raids, and in the 2000 presidential election in Florida, harassment on the way to polls, "voting while black or brown". Customs and other airport officials also engage in racial profiling of passengers. Read more about different kinds of racial profiling.

Is Racial Profiling Real?

Most Americans think so. A July 2001 Gallup poll reported that 55 percent of whites and 83 percent of blacks believe racial profiling is widespread. And the reports of thousands of racial and ethnic group members across the country add credibility to the perception that racial profiling is real. These are stories from all walks of life, not just hardworking everyday people, but celebrities, professional athletes, and members of the military. Also, reports of racial profiling come from respected members of communities of color such as police commanders, prosecutors, judges, state legislators, lawyers, dentists and even representatives in Congress, who have been victims.

Racial profiling is a new term for an old practice known by other names – institutional racism and discrimination – and owes its existence to prejudice that has existed in this country since slavery.

Tens of thousands of innocent drivers, pedestrians, and shoppers across the country are victims of racial profiling. And these discriminatory police stops and searches have reached epidemic proportions in recent years, fueled by the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" that have given police a pretext to target people they think fit a "drug courier," "gang member," or "terrorist" profile. In fact, racial profiling is the first step in a long road that leads to the heavily disproportionate incarceration of people of color, especially young men, for drug-related crimes, and of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians for suspicion of terrorism. Racial profiling continues to occur even though people of color are no more likely than whites to use or sell drugs, and Arabs Muslims and South Asians are no more likely than whites to be terrorists.



What is Discrimination?

Discrimination

What is Discrimination?
Discrimination is unfair treatment because of an individual's membership in a particular group.

What groups are covered under Massachusetts civil rights laws?
Massachusetts civil rights law protects individuals from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, mortgage lending, credit, and education. Each of these areas offers protections to particular groups. For more information, see Are You In Need of Our Services?

I think I've been discriminated against, but I'm not sure how. Can you tell me what is considered discrimination?
In the employment context, discrimination begins with an "adverse employment action": something an employer does that hurts an employee, such as terminating the employee, not selecting the employee for a promotion, giving the employee a poor evaluation, harassing the employee with derogatory remarks or behaviors, or denying the employee's request for an accommodation of a disability. If you believe the adverse employment action happened to you because of your race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, genetics, or past involvement in a discrimination complaint, it could be discrimination. If the adverse action happened to various people from all different backgrounds, it may not be discrimination, and other agencies may be able to assist you.

In the housing, public accommodation, mortgage lending, or credit context, discrimination begins when a landlord, realtor, store employee, service provider, or lender treats one individual differently than others because of his or her membership in a particular group, such as race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, children, past involvement in a discrimination complaint, veteran status, or status as a recipient of public assistance. If you believe you have been treated differently than others because of your membership in one of these groups, it could be discrimination. If you feel you were treated unfairly, but it was not because of your membership in a group, it may not be discrimination, and other agencies may be able to assist you. For more information about housing discrimination, see our Unlawful Discrimination in Housing Quick Reference Guide

Filing a Complaint

How do I know if my employer is covered by state discrimination laws?
If you are a part- or full-time employee at a workplace that employs at least six part- or full-time employees, then your employer is covered. If you have questions about this, you can raise them when you come to file a complaint.

How do I know if I should file a complaint?
If you believe you have experienced discrimination within the last 300 days, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is available to assist you. If you visit one of our offices and meet with an intake worker, he or she will explain to you what kind of evidence you will need to prove that discrimination occurred.

How do I file a complaint?
You can file a complaint in person in either the Boston or Springfield office. No appointment is necessary. For information about each office's hours and directions to each office, please see the Hours and Directions page. Please review the Questionnaires and complete any that are relevant to your complaint. Please bring completed Questionnaires and the Interview/Intake Form with you when you come in to file your complaint.

Can I file a complaint over the phone?
The MCAD will generally not file a complaint by phone. Unless you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have an attorney representing you, you must visit our Boston or Springfield office to file a complaint with a member of our intake staff.

Do you accept complaints by mail?
The MCAD will generally not accept complaints by mail. We have found that an in-person meeting with an intake worker produces the most thorough information gathering. However, if you are represented by an attorney, he or she can mail in a complaint accompanied by a self-stamped envelope.

Can I file a complaint if I am not a U.S. citizen?
Your rights are not affected by your immigration status. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination will not question your citizenship or request a copy of your documentation.

How much time do I have to file a complaint?
If you are filing a complaint about employment discrimination, you have 300 days from the date of the most recent incident of discrimination you believe you experienced. For example, Alicia is being harassed on the job because she is an immigrant from Cuba. On February 1, her locker was spray painted with a slur about Cubans. On March 1, her supervisor made insulting remarks about Cubans. The last incident happened on April 1, when Alicia's coworker told an offensive joke that mocked individuals with accents. Alicia has 300 days from April 1 to file a complaint. Alicia must come to the MCAD to file her complaint by February 1 of the following year. If you are filing a complaint about housing discrimination, you have one year from the date of the most recent incident of discrimination you believe you experienced.

How much will it cost to file a complaint?
There is no fee to file a complaint. You may decide to seek an attorney to represent you in the process. If so, the attorney will discuss with you what his or her fee will be. However, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination never collects a fee from someone who files a complaint.

What happens after I file my complaint?
Once your complaint is filed, your case will be assigned to an investigator. The investigator will contact you for more information about the case. The investigator may contact you to set up an "Investigative Conference" with the parties to learn more about the case, identify the issues in dispute, discuss possible available evidence, and explore the possibility of a negotiated settlement.

After I file my complaint, when will I hear from the Commission?
When you file a complaint at the Commission, your intake worker will give you a date for an investigative conference. You will be expected to attend the conference to explain your allegations.

I attended my investigative conference. When will I hear from the Commission about whether probable cause is found on my case?
The Commission expects to complete each case investigation within 18 months of filing. If probable cause is found ("probable cause" means it is more likely than not that discrimination occurred), you will proceed to the next stages of the complaint process, including opportunities for settlement and perhaps a public hearing.

Can I get in trouble or get fired for filing a complaint?
You have the right to file a complaint based on information you believe to be true, and it is unlawful to retaliate against you even if your belief was mistaken. The Commission notifies the organization named in your complaint of this provision of the law when it serves your charge. If you experience any form of retaliation after filing a complaint, we encourage you to contact your investigator immediately. If you experience retaliation after serving as a witness to someone else's complaint or speaking up about issues of discrimination in your workplace, you may file a complaint about the retaliation at the Commission just as you would file any other complaint of discrimination.

How much money am I entitled to if I win?
If your case results in a finding of discrimination, you may be awarded attorney's fees, back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, and/or interest. The amount to be paid to the person who experienced discrimination varies depending on the nature of the case and how severe the discrimination was. Payments can range from hundreds of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, discrimination is very difficult to prove, and most cases do not result in a discrimination finding or any payment to the complainant.

Do I need a lawyer to file a complaint?
No. It is optional to have a lawyer during the initial stages of the process. If you wish to retain an attorney, the Commission will work with your lawyer as we process the case. If "probable cause" is found at the investigation stage ("probable cause" means it is more likely than not that discrimination occurred), you may choose to have one of the Commission's staff attorneys represent you during later stages of the process.

Can you recommend a good lawyer for me?
The MCAD cannot make referrals to attorneys. However, other organizations do
provide referrals, such as the Massachusetts Bar Association. Also see the
Filing A ComplaintNotice brochure.

The MCAD

Where is the MCAD located?
We have three offices. One located in Boston, one in Springfield and one in Worcester.

In Boston, we are in The John McCormack Building, One Ashburton Place, Room 601, Boston, MA 02108.

Please see Hours and Directions for maps and detailed information about how to drive or take public transportation to the Commission's offices.

Where is One Ashburton?
One Ashburton Place runs parallel to BeaconStreet, between Bowdoin and Somerset Streets. As you face the State House, Bowdoin Street is on your right.

How do I get there?
By public transportation, take the T to ParkStreet Station. Or, take either Bus Number 43 or Bus Number 55. Both stop in front of the State House on Beacon. By car:From the West or the South South---find your way to Beacon Street, take the first left afterthe State House onto Bowdoin Street. From the East or North North---find your way to Cambridge Street (Massachusetts General Hospital or Boston City Hall) and ---turn onto Bowdoin Street.

What are your hours?
The MCAD office is open from 8:45 a.m. -5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Complaints are taken Monday -Friday, 8:45 a.m. -4:00 p.m.

What should I bring with me?
You should bring with you any relevant names, addresses, or telephone numbers, witnesses' names, and any other paperwork that will help investigate and establish your allegation of unlawful discrimination. You should also be able to give the date the alleged discrimination occurred.

For an employment case: You should have your employer's name, address, the approximate number of employees and the name of the parent company, if applicable.

For a housing case: Supply the landlord's or property manager's name, the real estate company's name, or the real estate agent's name, if appropriate.

For public accommodations: Bring the name of the owner or manager of the establishment.

Are there Federal agencies that protect my rights in employment and housing?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which can be reached at 617-565-3200 and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) at 617-565-5320. 5320.

Where can I get a copy of MCAD's rules and regulations?
The MCAD's regulations are available online, or for purchase at: State Bookstore, Room 116, State House, Boston, MA 02133, (617) 727-2834 or Western Office of the Massachusetts Secretary of State, 436 Dwight Street, Springfield, MA 01103, (413) 784-1376

Maternity Leave and Pregnancy

What is my employer's responsibility regarding maternity leave?
For more information about employer's responsibilities regarding maternity leave, please read the section of this site about the MCAD's Maternity Leave Guidelines. The guidelines explain how much time off you may be entitled to, your rights to pay and benefits during your leave, and your responsibilities regarding leave.

Can an employer refuse to hire or promote me, change my working conditions, or fire me because I am pregnant?
Employment decisions based solely on pregnancy are unlawful.

Training

How do I Train Employees?
A guide describing training relative to topics, fees and contacts has been prepared and may be found at MCAD Training Services

Are Massachusetts employers required to provide discrimination prevention training to their employees?
While the MCAD strongly encourages employers to provide discrimination prevention training, there is no Massachusetts law requiring such training. Ensuring that all employees receive an overview of their rights and responsibilities within one year of hire or within one year of assuming a new supervisory position may help mitigate liability should discrimination occur. The MCAD can provide a list of discrimination prevention trainers to interested employers (call the Training Unit assistant at 617-994-6072).

Are Massachusetts employers required to provide sexual harassment prevention training to their employees?
Massachusetts General Law 151B section 3a strongly encourages employers to provide sexual harassment training for all new employees within one year of hire or within one year of assuming a new supervisory position. Providing such training may help mitigate liability should harassment occur. Harassment prevention training should address not only sexual harassment, but all forms of discriminatory harassment covered under state law. The MCAD can provide a list of harassment prevention trainers to interested employers (call the Training Unit assistant at 617-994-6072).

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

2nd Annual Immigrant Celebration




CELEBRATING OUR IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES:

THE MANY FACES OF CAPE COD


We Welcome You All Newcomers, International J-1 Students Guest Workers from CVS Pharmacy's , Stop & Shop Supermarket, Star Super Markets, Shaw's Supermarket, and other Cape Cod Businesses.




2nd Annual Immigrant Celebration


July 8-14, 2009



Where: Harwich Center – Location- Brooks Park

Rt. 39 & Oak Street

When: Sun., July 12th, 2- 8 PM

Event Theme: “Hand in Hand, Across All Boarders”


Cook out, BBQ, Community Picnic, Softball, Arts & Crafts Show, Live Music Steel Drum Band ,Other Musical Groups?



Sponsored by the Harwich No Place for Hate Committee, and The Barnstable County Human Rights Commission

Thursday, May 15, 2008

VOTE FOR LOCAL ARTIST for GOOGLE !

Hand in Hand
What if … the world stops racism, and all people , black and white, and all religions, can join together. Most people think racism has been over for a number of years, but everywhere in the world people are still battling because they are different.
Name: Brendan Lynch
School: Barnstable Horace Mann Charter School
State: Massachusetts


Doodle 4 Google is a competition where we invite K-12 students to reinvent Google's homepage logo. This year we Doodle 4 Google is a competition asked U.S. kids to doodle around the theme "What if...?"

Well, the entries are in, and we couldn't be more impressed. We received thousands of wonderful doodles, and choosing 40 finalists for the public vote had to be one of the most difficult but enjoyable jobs at Google in the past few weeks.

So the kids have done their part, and we've done ours. Now it's your turn to help out by picking your favorite doodles. Your votes will help us select a national winner to replace our usual logo on the Google homepage on May 22, 2008.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Harwich Residents Celebrate Diversity, In Dr. King’s Name

Cape Cod Chronical - By Allan Pollock

HARWICH — The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a civil rights leader, a preacher and an orator, but most of all, a teacher. And, as evidenced by a gathering in his name Monday, Dr. King’s lessons still reverberate in Harwich.

The Harwich “No Place For Hate” group held a commemoration of Dr. King’s life at town hall on the holiday that bears his name. “It’s not a shopping day. It’s a thinking day, I believe,” organizer John Bangert said. The day is a time to remember Dr. King’s contributions to our nation, and to take time to meet and embrace unfamiliar neighbors, particularly those who don’t look like ourselves, Bangert said.

Speaking before a full meeting room, State Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown, said Americans tend to find each others’ differences, creating a nation of special interest groups. Even on Cape Cod, people see themselves as residents of a particular town, or as year-round residents, or as other subsets of a community, she said. Instead of finding distinctions, Dr. King taught people to find commonalities. When we follow that lesson, “this place we call home becomes bigger and bigger every day,” Peake said.

The keynote speaker at the event was Harwich attorney William Crowell, who has been a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for the last 18 years. Two years ago, Crowell decided to visit the SPLC headquarters in Montgomery, Ala., which sits in what was the epicenter of the civil rights movement, less than a half mile from landmarks like the state capital, the Greyhound bus terminal, the Dexter Avenue Church, and the place where Rosa Parks was arrested for not yielding her bus seat to a white person. For a person looking to learn more about the civil rights movement, there is no better place than Montgomery, Crowell said.

The SPLC has two major approaches to fighting discrimination and hate: filing civil lawsuits against groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and distributing a “teaching tolerance” program for use in school systems around the country. The SPLC headquarters was burned down once, and the attorneys—who are paid by donations, not legal fees—regularly face death threats. To Crowell, who runs a practice of real estate law, it’s hard to imagine.
“These lawyers are very courageous,” he said.

Traveling alone to the Deep South was “a little bit intimidating,” Crowell said. In a Starbucks coffee shop at the Atlanta airport, he noticed a distinguished Black man who looked familiar. On a hunch, he later spoke to the woman with whom the man was speaking, and confirmed that it was civil rights leader and NAACP President Julian Bond. The man, she told Crowell, is her husband, and he was conferring with her about a speech he was about to give at the SPLC headquarters.

Later, Bond invited Crowell to share a ride to his hotel. Seated together in the back seat of the car, Crowell admitted he felt like Bond had nothing in common with him. “Here’s a white, New England conservative lawyer,” Crowell said with a chuckle. But the two did strike up a conversation, discussing whose alma mater had the more beautiful campus. The important lesson was that Bond made an effort to reach out to Crowell “to make me feel comfortable.”
Crowell also attended a service at the Dexter Avenue Church, where Dr. King was pastor. Seated on either side of Crowell were people of color. There, during the prayer portions of the service, as is the custom, the worshipers all held hands.

“That really had a powerful effect on me,” he said.
Seeing the SPLC headquarters, hearing Bond speak, and seeing the various civil rights landmarks in Montgomery all were powerful experiences, Crowell said. But in retrospect, the most meaningful parts of the trip were his encounters with strangers with whom he assumed he had little in common. In the end, building relationships with these strangers was the most meaningful part of the trip, and the part most germane to Dr. King’s message.

“That was a glimpse, for me, of what Martin Luther King was talking about: the promised land,” Crowell said.

After Crowell’s speech, the Harwich assembly held a moment of silence, and then heard a reading from the Quran from Harwich High School junior Amira Downes. Then, members of the community stood to offer their thoughts about Dr. King and the holiday. One of those to speak was Carolyn Crowell, attorney Crowell’s mother.


(Hey- Who in Harwich Remembers This event in 1964?)

Mrs. Crowell said that one of her sons, Timothy, (William’s older brother) was a member of the Harwich High School Class of 1964, the last group to make the traditional class trip to Washington, D.C. After seeing the sights, the students stopped to have lunch at a restaurant, and the manager pulled one of the chaperones aside. The restaurant, he explained, would be unable to serve some of the Harwich students because of their skin color.
“And the entire class rose up and walked out,” Mrs. Crowell said.

Harwich Remembers Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.



Harwich - About 60 people, many of them students from Harwich High School, turned out at town hall Monday for the annual commemoration of the birthday of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.


Organized by Harwich No Place for Hate, the program featured singing, talks and a moment of silence. John Bangert, a local leader of the No Place for Hate initiative, served as master of ceremonies while William Crowell, a Harwich Port real estate lawyer, gave the keynote speech. Crowell is a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center, in Montgomery, Ala., and related to the audience his experience at the dedication two years ago of the Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery.


State Rep. Sarah Peake (4th Barnstable District) also addressed the group, and spoke about King’s legacy. Selectmen Robin Wilkins and Ed McManus attended.



Harwich High School junior Amira Downes offered a community prayer and affirmation in a reading from the Koran. Others stood or took the podium to express their feelings about King and the ongoing struggle for civil rights.


Local girl and boy scouts led the group in the Pledge of Allegience, and several scouts served as honor guard. The hour-long program took place in the Griffin Room.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

A Day ON, not a day off !



Monday, January 21, 2008
11:00 AM Harwich Town Hall –
3rd Annual MLK DAY
(A day on and not a day off!)





Commemorates the Life and Legacy of
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Email: noplaceforhate@comcast.net
Phone: (508) 432-0545





Singing of our National Anthem ~ The Star Spangled Banner -1814

Words by Francis Scott Key ~ Music by John Stafford Smith




O say, can you see,

by the dawn’s early light,

What so proudly we hailed

at the twilight’s last gleaming?


Whose broad stripes and bright stars,

through the perilous fight,

O’er the ramparts we watched,

were so gallantly streaming?

And the rocket’s red glare,

the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night

that our flag was still there.

O say does that star spangled

banner yet wave

O’er the land of the free,

and the home of the brave.







Honor Guard Harwich Cub Scouts
Pack 76













Welcome and introductory remarks: NPFH organizing Committee members John Bangert, Selectman Ed Mc Manus, Harwich Youth Counselor - Sheila House, Jane Henry and Chuck Micciche




State Representative Sarah K. Peake


Massachusetts State Representative, Sarah K. Peake gets cooking with cranberries during the Harwich Cranberry Harvest Festival.







Harwich Celebrates Our Diversity!





“Welcome to the Harwich’s—a place for all to live, work and play

Get to know your Harwich neighbors

Mr. & Mrs. Mike Massad -Lebanese Americans Operators, of Harwich Center Getty Station
Mr. & Mrs. Marcos Miranda - Brazilian Americans, Miranda Landscaping, Harwich, MA

Keynote Speaker: William Crowell, Esq. *

Topic: Southern Poverty Law Center and Harwich


(*) Bill Crowell, a lifelong resident of Harwich. lives in Harwich with his wife Dru and their children. Bill is a graduate of Harwich High School, Cornell University, and Suffolk University Law School. He is in his 30th year of practicing law in Harwich Port and for the last fifteen years has been a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, a block away from the Dexter Avenue Church in which Dr. Martin Luther King served as Pastor. Two years ago, Bill was invited to attend the dedication of the Civil Rights Memorial constructed across the street from the Law Center in Montgomery and would like to relate his experiences from that trip.






Community Prayers and Affirmations - Lead by Harwich High School junior Ms. Amira Downes, in the Islamic tradition.

We also have a dream!
And now a word from our Community!
(Share Your Dream in a phrase or in a word!)


Closing Hymn: We Shall Overcome


1.
We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day
·
· CHORUS:


Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day


· 2.
We'll walk hand in hand
We'll walk hand in hand
We'll walk hand in hand some day
· CHORUS

3.
We shall all be free
We shall all be free
We shall all be free some day
· CHORUS

4.
We are not afraid
We are not afraid
We are not afraid some day
· CHORUS

5.
We are not alone
We are not alone
We are not alone some day
· CHORUS

6.
The whole wide world around
The whole wide world around
The whole wide world around some day
· CHORUS

7.
We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day
· CHORUS


Reception: Albro House

Town of Harwich No Place for Hate Committee