Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document
Clearing House, Inc.) Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
June 25, 2002 Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 6156 words
COMMITTEE:HOUSE JUDICIARY
HEADLINE: CIVIL RIGHTS
DIVISION OVERSIGHT
TESTIMONY-BY: RALPH F. BOYD,
JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
BODY: STATEMENT OF RALPH F. BOYD, JR. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE JUDICIARY
JUNE 25, 2002
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Nadler, and members of the Subcommittee:
I would like
to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me to discuss the important work of the
Civil Rights Division. I appreciate this opportunity to let you know what the
Division has accomplished, answer your questions about our work, and listen to
your concerns and thoughts about what I believe has been our thoughtful and
vigorous enforcement of the civil rights laws. Let me begin by expressing
what a privilege it is to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Rights Division. The statutes enforced by the Civil Rights Division reflect some
of America's highest aspirations: to become a society that provides equal
justice under law; to become a society that effectively protects the most
vulnerable among us; and to become a society whose citizens not only protect
their own individual freedom and liberty - but champion the individual freedom
and liberty of their neighbors who may be different from them. And while the
very need to enforce the civil rights statutes confirms that we have not yet
achieved a society that is free from the conduct these statutes prohibit, there
is no doubt in my mind that America is better off for making the journey, and I
am therefore privileged, honored, and indeed humbled to be charged with the
awesome responsibility of civil rights enforcement at the Department of
Justice.
When I agreed to serve as Assistant Attorney
General, I came to the job as a professional prosecutor and litigator by
training and experience, and it is from that perspective that I report to you on
the work and accomplishments of the Civil Rights Division. Before I comment on
the substantive enforcement of the civil rights statutes, I note that one
of the jobs of the Department of Justice, and therefore the Civil Rights
Division, is to defend Acts of Congress from constitutional challenge wherever a
reasonable defense can be made. With this in mind, the Civil Rights Division,
mainly through the efforts of our Appellate Section, has been vigorously
defending anti-discrimination statutes by repeatedly intervening in cases where
constitutional questions are raised, and this effort has been largely
successful. For example, the Division has defended 11th Amendment challenges to
Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the Equal Pay Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and has been, with limited exceptions, very successful in this important
endeavor. Although these types of cases do not generate a great deal of
publicity, I mention them first because their impact is so significant.
Individual cases may be won or lost, but litigation over the constitutionality
of federal civil rights statutes goes to the fundamental question of whether
victims of discrimination will be able to seek relief in court. I am gratified
to report that the tools Congress has provided remain largely intact.
As for substantive enforcement, let me first speak
generally and say that the work of the Division goes forward carefully, but
aggressively. I recall during the confirmation process that many Senators'
written questions sought assurances that certain statutes would continue to be
enforced. I told the Senate then that I was committed to vigorous
enforcement of the law, and I feel very comfortable telling you today
that the Division is doing just that.
TAKING A
COOPERATIVE APPROACH TOWARD POLICE DEPARTMENT REFORM
I
think that the Civil Rights Division's enforcement of Section 14141 of
Title 42 of the United States Code, the statute that grants the Department of
Justice the authority to investigate State and local law enforcement
agencies that are alleged to have engaged in a pattern or practice of
unconstitutional conduct, provides a particular success story in this
regard.Last April, the City of Cincinnati, Ohio was literally and figuratively
smoldering in the wake of riots touched off by community reaction to a number of
controversial police shootings. One year later, Attorney General Ashcroft
presided over the signing ceremony for an agreement between the Department of
Justice and the City of Cincinnati that implemented significant reforms with
respect to uses of force by the Cincinnati Police Department. Moreover, by
engaging in a collaborative negotiation process with the City, the police, and
community groups, the Department of Justice agreement will be jointly monitored
and enforced along with a separate agreement among the community groups and the
City.This unique and historic arrangement achieved real reform without the need
for protracted litigation or a consent decree. It reflected our desire to help
fix the problems in Cincinnati, not fix the blame. It was supported by groups as
diverse as the Cincinnati Black United Front, the ACLU of Ohio, the Fraternal
Order of Police, the Cincinnati branch of the NAACP, and the Urban League of
Greater Cincinnati.
Cincinnati is not an isolated case.
Since the statute was passed in 1994, there have been seven settlement
agreements or decrees entered pursuant to Section 14141. Three of those
settlements have been achieved during this Administration. Moreover, the
Division has commenced active investigations in Portland, Maine; Schenectady,
New York; and Miami, Florida.In sum, the Division's enforcement efforts
with respect to this statute - led by the Special Litigation Section - have been
thoughtful, focused, and vigorous, and the overwhelmingly favorable results we
have achieved bear this out.
COMBATING CRIMINAL
DEPRIVATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS
As a former federal
criminal prosecutor, I really enjoy being able to convey the successes of our
Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section. The Criminal Section of the Civil
Rights Division prosecutes criminal civil rights violations, including
bias-motivated crimes, police and other official misconduct, and human
trafficking and involuntary servitude, among other things. From October 2000 to
February 2002, the Division filed cases against 218 defendants for criminal
civil rights violations. Of those, nearly 200 defendants were either convicted
at trial or pleaded guilty. During that period the Division secured convictions
in every prosecution involving non-law enforcement personnel, and in 80%
of the cases involving police or other official misconduct. Prosecution of State
and local officials who abuse their positions of authority continues to be a
priority for the Division. Since October 2000, 136 law enforcement
officials have been charged for using their positions to deprive local citizens
of constitutional rights. The number of officers charged in fiscal 2001 is the
most ever in a single year - and a 50% increase over the previous fiscal
year.
The investigation and prosecution of
bias-motivated crimes is also a top priority. Over the last year we have made
clear that the Department will not tolerate violence or other crimes driven by
racism or religious discrimination. Since October 2000, the Division has filed
38 cases charging 53 defendants with racial violence ranging from shootings and
assaults to cross burnings and arson. Moreover, in the wake of the tragic events
of September 11, 2001, the Division immediately responded to the upsurge in
backlash violence and threats.
PROSECUTING ACTS OF
DISCRIMINATORY BACKLASH AND ENGAGING IN COMMUNITY OUTREACH FOLLOWING SEPTEMBER
11 ATTACKS
Since September 11, the Civil Rights
Division has been involved in the investigation and prosecution of alleged
incidents involving violence or threats against individuals perceived to be of
Middle-Eastern origin, including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, Sikh
Americans, and South-Asian Americans. The Division has also been involved in
outreach efforts to provide individuals and organizations information about
government services.
With respect to the investigation
and prosecution of alleged incidents involving violence or threats, the Civil
Rights Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and United States
Attorneys' offices have investigated approximately 350 such incidents since
September 11. The incidents have consisted of telephone, internet, mail, and
face-to-face threats; minor assaults as well as assaults with dangerous weapons
and assaults resulting in serious injury and death; and vandalism, shootings,
and bombings directed at homes, businesses, and places of worship.
Several experienced attorneys in the Civil Rights
Division's Criminal Section have been tasked to review all new allegations and
to monitor those investigations that are opened to ensure uniform
decision-making in the initiation of federal investigations and prosecutions and
to optimize resource allocation. Approximately 70 State and local criminal
prosecutions have been initiated against approximately 80 subjects, many after
coordination between federal and local prosecutors and investigators. Federal
charges have been brought in ten cases, and the Civil Rights Division and United
States Attorneys' offices are working together on those cases. A few examples
are as follows:
(1) On February 14, 2002, the United
States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts filed a criminal
information against Zachary J. Rolnik under 18 U.S.C. 245 for placing a
telephone call to Dr. James J. Zogby, the president of the Arab- American
Institute - a national organization that advocates for Arab Americans, on the
morning of September 12, 2001 and leaving a voice mail message in which Rolnik
threatened to kill Dr. Zogby and his children. On June 6, 2002, Rolnik pled
guilty to the charge.
(2) On December 12, 2001, the
United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California filed a
criminal complaint against Irving David Rubin and Earl Leslie Krugel under 18
U.S.C. 371, 844, and 924 for conspiring to damage and destroy, by means of an
explosive, the King Fahd mosque and for possessing an explosive bomb to carry
out the conspiracy. On January 10, 2002, Rubin and Krugel were indicted under 18
U.S.C. 371, 2332, 844, 924, 373, 922, and 5861, which additionally included
charges related to the defendants' alleged attempt to damage and destroy, by
means of an explosive, the office of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the
district office of United States Representative Darrell Issa.
(3) On September 26, 2001, the United States Attorney's Office for the
Western District of Washington indicted Patrick Cunningham under 18 U.S.C. 844,
247, and 924 for shooting at two Islamic worshipers and for dousing two cars
with gasoline in an attempt to ignite them and cause an explosion that would
damage or destroy the Islamic Idriss Mosque. Cunningham pled guilty to two
counts on May 9, 2002 and faces a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison and a
maximum of life in prison.
In addition, the Civil
Rights Division and the United States Attorney's offices continue to coordinate
with local prosecutors in instances where cases are being prosecuted locally -
and where there are also potential federal crimes that have not been charged -
to consider whether plea bargains can resolve both local and federal criminal
liability.
We are pleased to note that cooperation
between federal agents and local law enforcement officers and between
Justice Department prosecutors and local prosecutors has been outstanding. This
is a testament to local law enforcement nationwide, which has shown the
willingness to, and which has largely been given the legal and financial
resources to, investigate and prosecute vigorously alleged bias-motivated crimes
against individuals perceived to be of Middle-Eastern origin, including Arab
Americans, Muslim Americans, Sikh Americans, and South-Asian Americans. The
Department is aware that, in rare instances, local authorities may not have the
tools or the will to prosecute a particular bias- motivated crime fully. In
those rare instances, the Department will be prepared to initiate federal
proceedings, if appropriate.
America is well-served by
our partners in State and local law enforcement. If the post-September 11
alleged incidents of backlash violence were a test of local efforts to prosecute
bias- motivated crimes, local law enforcement passed with flying
colors.
With respect to community outreach, I have
directed the Civil Rights Division's National Origin Working Group (NOWG) to
help combat the post-September 11 discriminatory backlash by referring
allegations of discrimination to the appropriate authorities and by conducting
outreach to vulnerable communities to provide information about government
services. The NOWG, which existed before the September 11 terrorist attacks, was
created to combat discrimination: (1) by receiving reports of violations based
on national origin, citizenship status, and religion, including those related to
housing, education, employment, access to government services, and law
enforcement, and referring them to the appropriate federal authorities;
(2) by conducting outreach to vulnerable communities; and (3) by working with
other components within the Department of Justice and with other federal
agencies to ensure accurate referrals, productive outreach, and the effective
provision of services to victims of civil-rights violations and by coordinating
efforts to combat the discriminatory backlash with other Department of Justice
components and other federal agencies.
Since September
11, I have spoken out against violence and threats against individuals perceived
to be of a certain race, religion, or national origin and have met frequently
with leaders of Arab-American, Muslim-American, Sikh-American, and South-Asian
American organizations. My first such meeting occurred on September 13, 2001,
the same day I issued a statement that "[a]ny threats of violence or
discrimination against Arab or Muslim Americans or Americans of South Asian
descents are not just wrong and un-American, but also are unlawful and will be
treated as such." Among the attendees at this meeting were James Zogby,
President, Arab American Institute; George Salem, Chairman, Arab American
Institute; and Dr. Ziad Asali, President, Arab-American Anti-Discrimination
Committee. Since that time, I have met with and spoken to various groups on
numerous occasions to listen to the concerns of minority communities and to
explain the Department's efforts in combating crimes of discriminatory
backlash.
AGGRESSIVELY PROSECUTING ACTS OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING
Another criminal enforcement
priority of the Civil Rights Division is to establish appropriate mechanisms to
enhance our ability to prosecute those who engage in the despicable act of
trafficking in persons. Even while these mechanisms are being developed, our
attorneys are aggressively prosecuting these cases. Using the additional tools
provided by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act passed by Congress in 2000,
the Civil Rights Division and United States Attorneys' offices have jointly
prosecuted dozens of traffickers and helped hundreds of trafficking victims over
the past year.
To provide one example, a Maryland
couple lured a fourteen-year old girl from Cameroon with promises of an American
education, only to enslave her as a domestic servant in their home for three
years. They kept her under their power through physical violence and threats of
deportation, and she was sexually assaulted. Ultimately, she ran away with the
help of a good Samaritan. A call to our human trafficking complaint line led to
a federal involuntary servitude prosecution. The couple was sentenced to nine
years in prison and ordered to pay the girl over $100,000 in restitution.
Using the new prosecutorial tools provided by the Act, we
prosecuted 34 defendants for human trafficking in 2001 -- roughly quadrupling
the number prosecuted in 2000. The Division currently has approximately 100
pending trafficking investigations, which represent nearly a 50% increase from a
year before.
IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S NEW FREEDOM
INITIATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 13217
The Civil Rights
Division is especially focused on initiatives of the President and the Attorney
General. On February 1, 2001, the President announced the New Freedom Initiative
to assist Americans with disabilities by increasing access to assistive
technologies, expanding educational opportunities, increasing the ability of
Americans with disabilities to integrate into the workforce, and promoting
increased access to daily community life. The Civil Rights Division has been an
active participant in this Initiative, led by the Disability Rights Section.
These dedicated attorneys have accomplished a great deal recently and many of
their victories are not just for individuals, but for the disabled community
that is afforded greater access through the relief the Section obtains. For
example, through "Project Civic Access," the Section reached agreements, which
were announced in January 2002, with 21 jurisdictions requiring them to ensure
that their public facilities (e.g., courthouses, libraries, polling places, and
parks) are accessible to people with disabilities, as required by the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Section has also negotiated: (1) a
comprehensive settlement agreement with New York-New York Hotel and Casino to
provide accessibility throughout its Las Vegas facility; (2) an agreement with
one of the nation's largest theater chains to modify its design for newly
constructed stadium-style theaters to provide people with disabilities
meaningful access; and (3) an agreement with a large resort and campground owner
and operator that will require policy changes allowing persons with service
animals to use the facilities, the nationwide training of all employees, and
compensatory damages for prior discrimination.
In
addition to these notable achievements, the Disability Rights Section has also
initiated a broader initiative called the "ADA Business Connection Project."
This business initiative seeks to facilitate increased compliance with the ADA
by fostering a better understanding of ADA requirements among the business
community and by increasing dialogue, understanding, and cooperation between the
business community and the disability community. The project features a new ADA
Business Connection web destination on the Section's ADA Website providing easy
access to information of interest to businesses and a new series of ADA Business
Briefs that are designed to be easily printed from the website for direct
distribution to a company's employees or contractors.
An essential part of this initiative is a series of meetings between
the disability and business communities, which represent collaborative efforts
to discuss how the disability community and business leaders can work together
to make the promise of the ADA a reality. The kick-off meeting in January 2002
raised many issues that can be addressed through collaboration and dialogue. For
example, one hotel company has approached a graduate business school about
including an instructional module on serving guests with disabilities in the
school's hotel curriculum. At our upcoming meeting, which is scheduled for
tomorrow, we expect to explore ways of ensuring adequate staff training about
the ADA and people with disabilities in service industries that typically suffer
from high staff turnover. We are also planning a series of meetings at several
cities around the country to foster dialogue between businesses and disability
groups in those cities regarding ADA compliance and market development
opportunities for business.
Both Project Civic Access
and the ADA Business Connection program are integral parts of the President's
New Freedom Initiative. In addition to these two projects, we are working with
State and local governments to implement Executive Order 13217 and the 1999
Olmstead v. L.C. United States Supreme Court decision, which requires States to
place individuals with disabilities in community settings rather than
institutions, where placement is appropriate and reasonable, in order to provide
them with greater access to community life. Thus, we are developing a technical
assistance document designed to assist States in implementing their
responsibilities under Title II of the ADA, including those addressed in the
Olmstead decision.
In addition, we hope to increase our
outreach and education efforts to parents and other family members of people
currently residing in institutions, those on the verge of institutionalization,
and professionals treating those persons. By doing so, we hope to assist family
members in understanding the benefits of community placement and to address some
treating professionals' unfamiliarity with community placement alternatives,
thereby reducing the likelihood that persons with disabilities who can be placed
in community settings will be unnecessarily institutionalized.
ENFORCING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AND IMPLEMENTING THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S VOTING RIGHTS INITIATIVE
In March 2001, the
Attorney General announced the Voting Rights Initiative to ensure that American
voters are neither disenfranchised nor defrauded. The initiative focuses on two
main areas of concern: preventing abuses of voting rights and prosecuting abuses
of voting rights.
The Voting Section enforces the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and has been incredibly busy, as is traditional
following a census. In the past year, the majority of the Section's
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act has been in the areas of Section 5
enforcement, Section 2 enforcement, and the use of Federal
observers in covered jurisdictions to ensure compliance with the Act. Since the
Administration began, the Section has received 7,178 Section 5 submissions
containing 22,360 changes, of which 1,703 were redistricting plans. The Division
has precleared 1,358 of the redistricting plans. We have interposed objections
to seven redistricting plans, four to changes of method of election, and one
cancellation of an election.
Another decennial task
given to the Voting Section is enforcement of the language minority
provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Section 203 requires certain States and
political subdivisions to conduct elections in the language of certain "language
minority groups" in addition to English. The Department is working with the
Census Bureau to ensure the Director of the Census carries out his statutory
responsibility to certify jurisdictions subject to Section 203 requirements. As
the certification process moves along, we are preparing an outreach campaign to
inform covered jurisdictions of their responsibilities and to assist in ensuring
that compliance with Section 203 is achieved prior to elections this fall.
In addition, the Section has represented the Attorney
General in three suits for a declaratory judgment under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act (filed by Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana). The Department recently
prevailed in the Georgia litigation: on April 5, 2002, the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia issued its decision, adopting the
Department's position and invalidating Georgia's State Senate plan. The
Louisiana case is still at the pretrial stage. The Section is also pursuing
several suits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits dilution
of minority voting strength. A lawsuit by the State of Florida seeking
preclearance of the State's congressional plan was recently dismissed after the
Department announced administrative preclearance. Litigation is pending, at
various stages, against Charleston County, South Carolina; the San Gabriel Water
District in California; and Alamosa County, Colorado. Another accomplishment is
a settlement in United States v. Lawrence, a Section 2 lawsuit brought to
protect the voting rights of Hispanic voters in Lawrence, Massachusetts. The
agreement was approved by a federal court on February 27, 2002. The Department
also recently announced settlement with Miami-Dade County resolving allegations
that the County had prevented certain Creole-speaking Haitian American voters,
with limited ability to understand English, from receiving assistance at the
polls by a person of their choice, as required under Section 208 of the Voting
Rights Act.
The Attorney General has allocated
additional attorney slots to the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division and
has announced the creation of a position devoted to addressing issues of
election reform. The Attorney General has now appointed a Senior Counsel for
Election Reform, Mark Metcalf, who is assisted by two career attorneys. These
attorneys monitor and review State and federal election reform proposals.
Investigations are also continuing in several matters related to the 2000
Presidential election.
PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF
INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS
Another example of vigorous
enforcement by the Division is our enforcement of the Civil Rights
of Institutionalized Persons Act or "CRIPA." This statute authorizes the Civil
Rights Division to investigate State-run nursing homes, prisons, and juvenile
facilities when credible allegations of systematic serious or flagrant
violations of constitutional standards or, in some cases, federal law, arise.
Although CRIPA work is very rarely high profile, it is among the most important
work that we do. CRIPA investigations can literally address life and death
issues in nursing homes and juvenile facilities, and the population protected by
the statute are among society's most vulnerable - the elderly, the mentally
disabled, victims of abuse, and children. This Administration has authorized
investigations of 24 facilities under CRIPA, and I have personally authorized 18
such investigations since I arrived at the Department late last July. In the
past seven months alone, the Division has conducted 57 tours of nursing homes,
juvenile facilities, mental health facilities, and correctional institutions. By
way of comparison, the Division initiated CRIPA investigations of 15 facilities
in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 combined. Moreover, the Special Litigation
Section, which is charged with enforcing this statute, is hiring to fill
attorney positions that have been added to pursue these cases, so I expect to
continue to be able devote the resources necessary to continue to enforce this
important statute.
CLOSING THE EDUCATION GAP
The work of the Division's Educational Opportunities
Section is notable for several recent major accomplishments. First, the Section
helped to resolve the longstanding Yonkers, New York elementary and secondary
education desegregation case. The settlement resolves outstanding issues
concerning State liability, restores control of the district to the local school
board, and provides $300 million to the school district to use for educational
and remedial programs over the next five years. These programs are intended to
help narrow the "achievement gap" between disadvantaged and other students.
The Section also achieved another major victory through
the settlement of the Mississippi higher education desegregation case, which was
approved by the court and will be of significant enduring benefit to many
disadvantaged and other students in Mississippi. Under the agreement, the State
will provide approximately $500 million to improve education at the State's
historically-black public four-year colleges and increase access for minority
students to the State's other colleges. As part of the relief, the
historically-black colleges will implement new programs, be provided funds to
enhance facilities, and will receive funds to create and enhance existing
endowments.
Other notable achievements in safeguarding
educational opportunities for all students include: (1) successfully litigating
a Title IX case against the Michigan High School Athletic
Association ("MHSAA") and obtaining a court order that requires MHSAA to develop
a plan to ensure equal opportunity for girls in high school sports; (2)
obtaining a favorable settlement in ten cases regarding the desegregation of
several of Alabama's junior colleges and trade schools; (3) working with parties
in longstanding desegregation cases to ensure that requests for unitary status
were properly evaluated, and agreeing to unitary status in several cases where
our efforts helped achieve unitary school systems; and (4) opening preliminary
inquiries into school districts to determine whether legally appropriate
services are being provided to limited English proficient students, disabled
students, and whether peer harassment is being adequately addressed by school
officials.
PROTECTING HOUSING, CREDIT, AND PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATION RIGHTS The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section enforces
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title II of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (public accommodations), and Section 2 of the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). Under the first three
statutes, the Department of Justice may bring suit where there is a "pattern or
practice" of discrimination. RLUIPA enforcement may involve a single
incident of discrimination. In addition, upon referral from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the FHA, after HUD has investigated
and issued a charge of discrimination, the United States may bring suit on
behalf of individual victims of discrimination.
This
Section has been extremely busy during this Administration and has achieved a
number of notable successes. The Section has brought 51 new lawsuits, negotiated
57 consent decrees and settlement agreements, and litigated one case to judgment
in a successful jury trial. I have also authorized 16 additional lawsuits that
are in pre-suit negotiations. Examples of significant victories include a
$451,208 verdict against a landlord who sexually harassed a number of his female
tenants, and two consent decrees against nightclub owners in Kansas and Alabama
who denied black patrons access to the clubs on the same basis as whites.
The Section's pending matters run the full gamut of the
statutes under its jurisdiction. For example, since January 20, 2001, the
Section has filed cases under the FHA against housing providers alleging race or
national origin discrimination, sexual harassment and numerous cases against
developers and builders of multifamily housing that fail to meet the FHA's
requirement that they be accessible to persons with disabilities. I also have
approved (1) two lending discrimination cases, one involving redlining practices
by a major urban bank; (2) several cases involving sexual harassment of tenants
by landlords; (3) several cases of discrimination based on familial status or
race; and (4) several cases involving discriminatory zoning decisions which were
based on the race, national origin, or disabilities of the affected
individuals.
WORKING TO ENSURE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
The Employment Litigation Section has had
ten successful resolutions of cases involving discrimination based on race, sex,
and religion since the beginning of the new Administration. They include: (1) a
2001 supplemental consent order in the Milwaukee Fire Department case where we
secured $1.8 million in back pay and 40 jobs for African-American victims of
hiring discrimination; (2) a settlement with the City of Newark based on
religious discrimination directed at Muslim police officers; and (3) three
consent decrees resolving allegations of sexual harassment.
With respect to the settlement with the City of Newark, the Civil
Rights Division alleged that the City had discriminated against current and
former police officers on the basis of their religion by failing or refusing
reasonably to accommodate their religious observance, practice, and belief as
Muslims of wearing a beard. The suit also alleged that the City threatened the
Muslim officers with termination, transferred them to undesirable assignments,
and denied them opportunities to work special overtime events.The consent decree
provides for back pay and compensatory damages to 10 current and former Newark
police officers. In addition, the agreement provides for two years of court
supervision to allow the Department to ensure that the City implements
non-discriminatory employment policies designed to reasonably accommodate the
religious observance, practice, and belief of police department employees.
As with the other sections in the Division, the Employment
Litigation Section continues to be very productive. During this Administration,
the Section opened 133 new investigations, received authorization for 9 new
cases, 3 of which have been filed, litigated 37 active cases, and monitored 67
consent decrees. One of the new and precedent-setting cases filed by this
Administration involves the application of Title VII to participants in workfare
programs under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996. In this case, the Division took the position that Title VII applied
to women who were participants in workfare programs and who were allegedly
subjected to sexual harassment. Although the district court disagreed with our
position, the United States will appeal this case to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. Another significant case that the Division and
the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has just filed
challenges the promotion practices of the New York City Department of Parks and
Recreation. In that lawsuit, the United States alleges that the Parks Department
engaged in a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination against blacks
and Hispanics in making promotions. Among other things, the suit alleges that
the Parks Department failed to follow its own procedures by routinely failing to
post notices of job openings and instead selecting white employees for
promotions.
As stated, I have authorized 9 new
lawsuits, 6 of which are in pre-suit negotiations. A few examples of the types
of cases we are handling include cases that involve the sexual harassment of a
female firefighter by her male colleagues, the sexual harassment of a school
teacher by a female supervisor of the same sex, and the denial of a black
employee of a promotion because of his race.
PROTECTING
CITIZENS AND LEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
One particularly important component of the Civil Rights Division that
I also wanted to mention is the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration
Related Unfair Employment Practices or "OSC." OSC protects United States
citizens and work-authorized aliens from employment discrimination based on
citizenship status or national origin. The OSC fulfills this mission through
investigation and litigation, a vigorous outreach program directed towards
employers and potential victims of discrimination, and a unique early
intervention program. The OSC also advises the Department on a wide range of
policy matters relating to immigration and the treatment of immigrants.
The Office's accomplishments include: (1) the
investigation of 196 charges alleging unfair immigration-related employment
practices since January 20, 2001; 42 of those investigations have been resolved
through settlement; (2) favorable results in, and the ongoing litigation of,
cases and matters against major employers in several industries that employ
large numbers of immigrants, including the hospitality, gaming, agriculture,
meatpacking, and retail industries; (3) initiation of a major investigation of
internet-based job-referral agencies that may be engaging in acts of illegal
citizenship status discrimination; (4) an expanded and improved program,
including increased outreach to the employer community, use of ethnic media to
communicate OSC's mission to under-served communities, and increased emphasis on
establishing partnerships with State and local governments; and (5) timely and
ongoing responses to both employer and worker concerns about the employment of
non-citizens in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks.
CONCLUSION
Today I have talked about the
highlights of the Division's accomplishments and initiatives, but there is
obviously more that could be said. I must say in closing that none of what I
have discussed could have been accomplished without the dedicated career staff
of the Civil Rights Division, and in fact, it is because of their, experience,
talent, and dedication that we have been able to achieve the successes we have -
both in terms of quality and quantity - during my brief tenure as Assistant
Attorney General.I look forward to answering your questions.
Document 9 of 15. 