Skip to main content

Home Instead Senior Care Sued for Race Bias

EEOC Says Management Officials Engaged in Race-Based Assignments

BALTIMORE - Hi Care, Inc. d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care, which provides home care services for seniors in Anne Arundel and Howard counties illegally engaged in a pattern and practice of race-based assignments of its caregiver employees, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a lawsuit filed today.

In its suit, the EEOC charges that since at least October 2007, Hi Care employed racial coding to identify clients who preferred Caucasians caregivers as “circle dots,” and relied upon such racial coding when assigning caregivers to work. The EEOC asserts that Hi Care catered to the racial preferences of its clients at its Arnold and Ellicott City, Md. offices.

Such alleged practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division (Civil Action No. 1:1-cv-02692-WMN), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. In addition to monetary relief which represents back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for a class of employees who were given assignments based on their race, the suit seeks to enjoin Hi Care from assigning caregivers based on its clients’ racial preferences, and to institute policies which provide equal employment opportunities for caregivers of all races in its work assignments.

“This case shows that race discrimination still continues to permeate employment decisions 46 years after the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” said Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “The law mandates that assignments be made without regard to customers’ racial preferences. The EEOC will vigorously enforce the legal right to a workplace free of race discrimination.”

In fiscal year 2009, the EEOC received 33,579 race discrimination charge filings accounting for 36% of the agency’s private sector workload.

According to its website (www.homeinstead.com) Home Instead Senior Care is an international leader in non-medical senior care with more than 800 independently owned and operated franchises throughout the world.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site (www.eeoc.gov).

Comments

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.

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...

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 ...