Employment
Comité de Jornaleros de Glendale v. City of Glendale, California
Lopez v. Town of Cave Creek, Arizona
In September 2007, the town of Cave Creek, Arizona passed an anti-solicitation ordinance targeting day laborers, who often seek work in traditional public areas subject to constitutional protection, such as sidewalks. The Cave Creek ordinance prohibited a person on or adjacent to a street, including on sidewalks, from soliciting or attempting to solicit employment, business, or contributions from occupants of moving or parked vehicles.
Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Community College District
Beginning in October 2003, a faculty member of Glendale Community College disseminated racially pernicious e-mails using a system-wide employee listserv. The messages also contained links to the faculty member’s personal web-page, which he maintained on the Maricopa County Community College District’s server. There, the employees encountered offensive and incendiary essays, articles, and links to other racist websites.
Civil Rights Coalition Challenges Arizona Employer Sanctions Law
Valle del Sol v. Goddard (Arizona Contractors v. Candelaria)
Coral Construction v. City and County of San Francisco, California
Two construction companies challenged San Francisco’s Minority and Woman Business Enterprise Ordinance, allowing consideration of race and gender in the awarding of public contracts in the city. The companies argue that the ordinance violates Proposition 209, which prohibits the consideration of race and gender in California contracting, education and employment and is now codified as Article 1, Section 31 of the California Constitution.
The Electronic Employment Verification System (E-Verify)
President Bush’s Executive Order Imposes Flawed Electronic Verification System On Government Contractors
MALDEF Se Une A La Demanda Para Recuperar Los Salarios De Trabajadores Que Fueron Obligados A Trabajar Sin Paga
MALDEF Joins Lawsuit To Recover Wages For Employees Who Were Forced To Work “Off The Clock” Without Pay
Gutierrez v. Paragon Schmid Building Products
In March 2007, MALDEF joined a class action lawsuit seeking to recover millions of dollars in wages owed to construction workers under California wage and hour laws. The claims for unpaid wages could affect over a thousand workers throughout California who work for defendants Western Insulation, Paragon Schmid, or Masco Contractor Services. The plaintiffs and putative class members, most Latino workers, install gutters, fireplaces, insulation, and other construction products at numerous locations throughout California. The defendant-employers are several subsidiaries of Masco Corporation, a Fortune 200 company that owns approximately 20 different installation yards throughout the state of California. The plaintiffs and the putative class allege that the defendants have a practice and policy of failing to pay installers for all hours worked at the proper rate of pay.
Gray v. City of Valley Park, Missouri
MALDEF, Quietflex Manufacturing Company, L.P., Announce Final Approval Of Settlement With Latino Employees On Discrimination Claims
Houston, TX – U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal granted final approval today to the settlement of discrimination claims asserted against Quietflex Manufacturing Company, L.P. (“the Company”). Under the terms of the settlement, the Company’s insurer will pay $2.8 million to 78 current and former Latino Company employees. In addition, the Company has agreed to implement policies and practices to advance equal employment opportunity.
Colindres v. Quietflex Manufacturing Company
All workers, regardless of their race or national origin, should be treated equally in the workplace. Latino employees at Quietflex Manufacturing Company, a Houston based company that manufactures air conditioning ducts, claimed they were not treated equally. Instead, they were segregated in a department with the harshest work conditions, denied transfers, limited in their opportunities for advancement, and paid at substantially lower rates than non-Latino workers. Other workers held similarly-skilled positions in other departments with more favorable working conditions. The Latino workers asserted they were segregated in the workplace based on their inability to speak English and communicate with the supervisors in other departments.