Skip to main content

Grand Central Partnership Fired Rastafarian for Complaining of Threatened Violence, EEOC Says

Despite Earlier Consent Decree Barring Religious Discrimination and Retaliation, Security Guard Fired After Complaining of Coworker’s Threat, Federal Agency Charges

NEW YORK – Grand Central Partnership, Inc. (GCP), a not-for-profit developer of real estate, offices, and facilities around the Grand Central Terminal area in New York, violated a consent decree and committed new illegal acts when it fired a black Rastafarian security officer in retaliation for his complaints about threats of violence and racism, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Friday.

According to the suit, in 2009, EEOC and GCP settled an earlier lawsuit about GCP’s treatment of Rastafarian and Caribbean security officers with a consent decree filed in federal court. In that settlement, the parties had agreed that GCP would offer accommodations for the religious practices of the Rastafarian security officers and not retaliate against Rastafarian security officers for their participation in the lawsuit. As part of that settlement, GCP is still subject to supervision by the federal court in that action.

The new lawsuit claims that in 2010, the hostility toward Rastafarians at GCP erupted again when a non-Caribbean security officer threatened to shoot and kill a group of Rastafarian officers. After a white security supervisor made light of the physical threats made to the Rastafarian security officers, one Rastafarian security officer objected to the supervisor’s conduct and his past discrimination. Additionally, he called the supervisor a racist for referring in the past to a group of Rastafarians with the “N word” and threatening to stand in the way of their getting paid for their work. After the security officer complained to the supervisor and telephoned EEOC, GCP fired him about three months later.

This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees from retaliation when they complain about employment discrimination based on race or religion. It additionally is a breach of the original consent decree filed in 2009. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No.11 Civ. 9682 SDNY, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, only after attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

Elizabeth Grossman, Regional Attorney of EEOC’s New York District Office, said, “EEOC is particularly concerned when it obtains a consent decree to stop violations of the law and the employer turns around and ignores the settlement by reverting to the illegal behavior.
We will pursue vigorously retaliation claims against employers whose managers would rather not comply with court orders and fire individuals who object to threats based on their religion and bias based on race.”

“Retaliation against an employee who objects to threats of violence against his co-religionists and then objects to racism will not be tolerated. EEOC’s lawsuit should make it clear that an employer may not blame the victim when it loses control of its managers and employees,” Michael Ranis, a trial attorney in EEOC's New York District Office, said.

EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Further information about the EEOC is available at 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 ...