Segregation, Isolation or Classification of a Protected Class Member is Employment Discrimination
In fiscal year 2007, the EEOC reportedly received 30,510 charges of race discrimination and resolved 25,882 race charges in FY 07 recovering $67.7 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation).
Today's question: Can a Massachusetts employer remove an employee or isolate a protected class member in an employment context?
The EEOC website offers the following examples demonstrating this prohibited conduct is employment discrimination. Thus an employee in Massachusetts facing these circumstances should consider seeking the help of an employment lawyer or consider pursuing a claim if they are being discriminated against in one of these manners in Mass.
Segregation and Classification of Employees
Title VII is violated where employees who belong to a protected group are segregated by physically isolating them from other employees or from customer contact. In addition, employers may not assign employees according to race or color. For example, Title VII prohibits assigning primarily African-Americans to predominantly African-American establishments or geographic areas. It is also illegal to exclude members of one group from particular positions or to group or categorize employees or jobs so that certain jobs are generally held by members of a certain protected group. Coding applications/resumes to designate an applicant's race, by either an employer or employment agency, constitutes evidence of discrimination where people of a certain race or color are excluded from employment or from certain positions.If you look at the MCAD's Fair Employment Law Poster hanging up in most places of employment you will note it states:
IT IS UNLAWFUL:Further,
- to print or circulate any advertisement or use any application form which directly or indirectly specifies any limitation on the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, genetic information, military service, age, ancestry or disability.
- to discharge or reuse to hire any individual on the basis of their race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, genetic information, military service, age, ancestry or disability.
- to discriminate against any individual in matters relating to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, genetic information, military service, age, ancestry or disability. ...
RETALIATION:Thus, not only is discrimination prevented, but so is retaliating against those who are involved in discrimination cases. That is, there's a separate and distinct complaint one may have against an employer who takes an adverse employment action against an employee for asserting their rights and advancing their employment discrimination claims. If you're interested in retaliation issues, you may want to see my prior post (with links at its bottom) for more discussion on retaliation claims and trends in employment matters.
It is illegal to retaliate against any person because s/he has opposed any practices forbidden under this Chapter or because s/he has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding before the Commission. It is also illegal to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doings of any of the acts forbidden under this Chapter or to attempt to do so.
