Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document
Clearing House, Inc.) Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
May 21, 2002 Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 5892 words
COMMITTEE:SENATE JUDICIARY
HEADLINE: OVERSIGHT OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
TESTIMONY-BY: RALPH F. BOYD, JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
AFFILIATION: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BODY: Statement of Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. Assistant
Attorney General Department of Justice
Senate Judiciary
Committee
OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE -
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
May 21, 2002
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Republican member Hatch, and members of the
Committee:
I would like to thank the Committee 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. I also want to thank your respective staffs for the
courtesies they have extended me in our meetings prior to this hearing.
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. As William Jennings Bryan once said,
"Anglo-Saxon civilization has taught the individual to protect his own rights;
American civilization will teach him to respect the rights of others." 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 you 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 and Schenectady, New York, and preliminary inquires are underway
in several South Florida jurisdictions. In sum, the Division's
enforcement efforts with respect to this statute - led by its 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, 114 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 34 cases charging 49 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 a suspect under 18 U.S.C. 245
for placing a telephone call to an Arab-American man and threatening to kill him
and his children.
(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. About eight weeks ago, 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, the Division's largest section and one of its most
active. 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 June 26, 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 last February,
the Section has received 6,683 Section 5 submissions containing 21,163 changes,
of which 1,771 were redistricting plans. The Division has precleared 1,222 of
the redistricting plans. We have interposed objections to six redistricting
plans, six changes in the form of government, and one cancellation of an
election.
In addition, the Section has represented the
Attorney General in two suits for a declaratory judgment under Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act (filed by Georgia 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. 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. The agreement was approved by a federal court on February 27,
2002.
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. The Senate Special Committee on Aging's hearings on March 4,
2002 made clear the importance of safeguarding the safety and health of senior
citizens in nursing homes. 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 only 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 47 new lawsuits, negotiated 49 consent decrees, and
litigated one case to judgment in a successful jury trial. I have also
authorized 20 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 12 cases against
developers and builders of multifamily housing that fail to meet the FHA's
requirement that they be accessible by persons with disabilities. I also have
approved (1) two lending discrimination cases, one involving redlining practices
by a major Chicago 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 disabled status of the
affected individuals.
WORKING TO ENSURE EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
The Employment Litigation
Section has had nine 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 commenced 59
supplemental investigations of charges referred to the Civil Rights Division by
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed eight new cases, litigated 34
active cases, and monitored 69 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, I have authorized an appeal of this
case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
I have authorized eight new lawsuits that are in pre-suit
negotiations. One case involves the sexual harassment of a female firefighter by
her male colleagues. Another involves the sexual harassment of a school teacher
by a female supervisor of the same sex. In another case, a black employee was
denied 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) acceptance of
315 charges alleging unfair immigration-related practices, completion of 265
investigations of charges, and settlement of over 30 charges and complaints; (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 10 of 15. 