Skip to main content

Justice Department Settles Lawsuit Alleging Race Discrimination Against the City of Marion, Arkansas

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced that it has reached a settlement with the city of Marion, Ark., that, if approved by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, will resolve the department’s lawsuit against the city alleging race discrimination in employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, national origin or religion.

The department’s complaint, filed in May 2009, alleges that the city discriminated against Stacy D. Allen, an African-American and a former part-time patrol officer in the city’s police department, when it did not appoint him as a full-time patrol officer. The complaint alleges that the police department had a history of appointing the most senior part-time patrol officer as a full-time officer when a full-time position became available. However, when Allen, who was the city’s only African-American patrol officer, became the most senior part-time patrol officer and two full-time positions opened, the city appointed two less senior white part-time patrol officers to those positions instead of Allen. The Justice Department’s complaint was based on a charge of discrimination filed by Allen with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"All Americans are guaranteed the right to know that they can pursue their career of choice without fear of discrimination based on their race," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. "Title VII protects individuals, such as Mr. Allen, from having to suffer discrimination in the workplace. The Justice Department will take swift action against those employers who engage in discrimination, and we appreciate the partnership of the EEOC in these matters."

The settlement agreement requires that the city not discriminate against on the basis of race, or in any way adversely affect the terms and conditions of employment of, any applicant or person employed in the city’s police department. The agreement also requires that the city provide Allen with a monetary award of $16,000 ($2,250 in back pay and $13,750 in compensatory damages).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more