3 ms·

> I can't file an EEOC complaint because I wasn't discriminated against. That's not quite true. I'd talk to a California employment law attorney, or a public

by Digory 8y ago

> I can't file an EEOC complaint because I wasn't discriminated against. That's not quite true. I'd talk to a California employment law attorney, or a public interest law firm that might be interested in these facts. > People working here seem morally fine with this sort of discrimination. This is the bigger problem, but the nondiscrimination laws were passed precisely because some people felt morally fine with race discrimination.

eesmith 8y ago
To add to that, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act is broader than the US federal law, and the federal laws related to the EEOC don't require that complainant be the one that was discriminated against. The laws against retaliation hold so long as you have a "reasonable good faith belief" that there may be a violation of the laws, and the court has a generous interpretation of that phrase. I'll quote from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/briefs/jordan2.txt https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/briefs/jordan2.txt : > ... an employee should be deemed protected from retaliation by §704(a) when he reports conduct by a coworker or supervisor which, if repeated often enough, would create a hostile work environment. Several courts have held such complaints protected, often by applying a generous standard in determining whether the plaintiff's belief was reasonable. See, e.g., Alexander, 40 F.3d at 195-96 (summarized supra at p. 11); Reed, 95 F.3d at 1174-80 (summarized supra at p. 11); Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1994) (black corrections officer believed prison's practice of allowing white inmates, but not black inmates, to shower after work shifts violated Title VII; he complained and was fired; court held that even if these inmates would not be considered employees for Title VII purposes, plaintiff's belief might still have been reasonable, and the district court accordingly erred in dismissing his claim); id. at 984 ("An erroneous belief that an employer engaged in an unlawful employment practice is reasonable, and thus actionable under § 704(a), if premised on a mistake made in good faith. A good-faith mistake may be one of fact or of law.") (emphasis in original); ... ("[P]laintiffs alleging retaliation are not required to possess a good faith, reasonable belief as to every legal element necessary to succeed on such a claim, and are instead held only to a ‘lay person's' understanding of the violation . . . . It is the Court's firm conviction that . . . the law should not leave unprotected those employees who experience retaliation for reports of what they believe reasonably and in good faith to be a violation of the law . . . ."). You can see that the corrections officer was protected from retaliation even though he himself was not the one being discriminated against. But really, take Digory's advice and talk to someone with specific CA experience.

by Digory 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

To add to that, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act is broader than the US federal law, and the federal laws related to the EEOC don't require that complainant be the one that was discriminated against. The laws against retaliation hold so long as you have a "reasonable good faith belief" that there may be a violation of the laws, and the court has a generous interpretation of that phrase. I'll quote from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/briefs/jordan2.txt https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/briefs/jordan2.txt : > ... an employee should be deemed protected from retaliation by §704(a) when he reports conduct by a coworker or supervisor which, if repeated often enough, would create a hostile work environment. Several courts have held such complaints protected, often by applying a generous standard in determining whether the plaintiff's belief was reasonable. See, e.g., Alexander, 40 F.3d at 195-96 (summarized supra at p. 11); Reed, 95 F.3d at 1174-80 (summarized supra at p. 11); Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1994) (black corrections officer believed prison's practice of allowing white inmates, but not black inmates, to shower after work shifts violated Title VII; he complained and was fired; court held that even if these inmates would not be considered employees for Title VII purposes, plaintiff's belief might still have been reasonable, and the district court accordingly erred in dismissing his claim); id. at 984 ("An erroneous belief that an employer engaged in an unlawful employment practice is reasonable, and thus actionable under § 704(a), if premised on a mistake made in good faith. A good-faith mistake may be one of fact or of law.") (emphasis in original); ... ("[P]laintiffs alleging retaliation are not required to possess a good faith, reasonable belief as to every legal element necessary to succeed on such a claim, and are instead held only to a ‘lay person's' understanding of the violation . . . . It is the Court's firm conviction that . . . the law should not leave unprotected those employees who experience retaliation for reports of what they believe reasonably and in good faith to be a violation of the law . . . ."). You can see that the corrections officer was protected from retaliation even though he himself was not the one being discriminated against. But really, take Digory's advice and talk to someone with specific CA experience.