Tagged: Employment

California’s human development divide

May 26, 2011 | Mona Tawatao | Tags: , , ,

The American Human Development Project recently released A Portrait of California, the latest report in its Measure of America series.   Uniquely, the report ranks regions and sectors of the state using the American Human Development Index (HDI) a composite figure derived from health, education and standard of living markers.   Sarah Burd-Sharps, a report co-author explains, “The [HDI] provides a way to make sense of economic, health, and education challenges in the interconnected way that people actually experience them.”  The report gives San Francisco the highest HDI (6.97) and Riverside-San Bernardino the lowest (4.58) of California five most populous regions.  The report also ranks the state’s major racial and ethnic groups, native- and foreign-born residents, and 233 neighborhood clusters with reliable U.S Census data. 

Based on HDI scores, the report sorts residents into “Five Californias”.  Only  1 % make it into highly privileged  “Silicon Valley Shangri-La” with a 9.35 HDI score.  By contrast, 38 % of residents occupy “Struggling California”, a group at 4.17 on the HDI whose members are found in the Central Valley, Inland Empire and swaths of Northern California and whose hard work never leads to security or sustained well-being.  Faring worst of all is “The Forsaken Five Percent” at 2.59 on the HDI.  The Forsaken, who are mostly Latino and African-American  reside in impoverished Los Angeles neighborhoods and areas of the San Joaquin Valley and face extremely limited opportunities and choices.  Interestingly, one third of the Shangri-Las and one third of the Forsaken are foreign-born.

The report’s findings point up stark economic, racial and gender disparities including:

  • Just 100 of California’s nearly 2,500 high schools account for half of the state’s dropouts.
  • Men earn more than women in every racial and ethnic group.
  • A gap of $58,000 in annual earnings of the typical worker separates the state’s top wage earners in the Santa Clara–Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos area (about $73,000) from the lowest earners in the LA–East Adams–Exposition Park area (about $15,000).
  • California’s Latina women earn the least:   $18,000, which is about what  the typical American worker earned in 1960 half a century ago.
  • There is a 15.3 year life expectancy range across neighborhoods with the high and low— Newport Beach/Laguna Hills area (88.1 years) and Watts (72.8 years)—in the same metropolitan area.

There are some report findings that  some readers may find counterintuitive, including the fact that California’s overall life expectancy at 80.1 years is one and a half years longer than the national figure and that foreign-born Californians live an average of four years longer than native-born residents.

“Given the current budgetary environment in California, there could be no better time for this nonpartisan, fact-based tool to break down the silos, look at who is thriving and who is merely surviving, and identify the most strategic levers for change,” says report co-author Kristen Lewis.  In a recent piece on the report, Sacramento Bee political columnist Dan Walters warns that failure to take appropriate action on the findings will relegate the Golden State to the “two-tier” haves and have-nots California that he predicted in his writings of 25 years ago.

The report’s recommendations include fixing the broken governance system, targeting high drop out high schools, reducing residential segregation, reducing the earnings gender gap and addressing the African-American health crisis.

We encourage California readers to examine the full report and see how its findings, maps and other demographic information might be used in advocacy.

Articles and Decision of Interest

March 28, 2011 | Maya Roy | Tags: , ,

Over the course of the last few days, several articles have been published that are of interest to REP blog readers, as well as a recent Court decision, so I share them here:

  • Yesterday, The New York Times published an article, Supreme Court to Weigh Sociology Issue in Wal-Mart Discrimination Case.  As explained in the article, the Supreme Court is tasked with deciding whether or not a generalized scientific showing of how unregulated discretion can lead to discriminatory results due to implicit bias is sufficient to show that plaintiffs are similarly situated (for purposes of class certification) as opposed to a particularized and empirical scientific inquiry into the gender bias of the hundreds of Wal-Mart employees who made decisions about who would be promoted and who would not over the years.  The essay referenced in the article, A Matter of Context: Social Framework Evidence in Employment Discrimination Class Actions is available here.  The Amicus brief filed by the American Sociological Foundation and the Law and Society Association is available here.  This is an important case for advocates attempting to integrate the science explaining implicit bias into their advocacy to show intent in discrimination cases.
  • Last week, Judge Mendez of the Eastern District of California found constitutional (under the federal and state constitutions, including Proposition 209 and Title VI) the California Department of Transportation’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, which required for a small portion of the Department’s contracts explicit consideration of and awards of contracts based on the race and gender of the business owner.  For more information on the case, click here.  Related to the first article mentioned, this is another case where expert testimony (which was not rebutted) regarding implicit bias was introduced in order to demonstrate the race-conscious selection criteria in the Department’s program was narrowly tailored and could withstand strict scrutiny.
  • Today The Los Angeles Times published an article, Poverty Often a Temporary State, U.S. Census Study Finds.  Although the central findings are known to many anti-poverty advocates, the article provides another layer of information for us to understand the cycle of poverty in today’s impoverished communities.
  • Although this is not a recent article, I became aware recently of USAToday’s interactive website dedicated to analyzing Census 2010 data.  Of particular interest to REP readers, USAToday created a Diversity Index, “a 0 to 100 score that represents the probability that two people chosen randomly from an area will have different racial or ethnic backgrounds.”  In other words, the higher an index score, the more diverse the geographic region.  Check out your community’s index score!

Understanding SB1070 From the Lens of Institutionalized Racism and Civil Rights

September 30, 2010 | Maya Roy | Tags:

By Bill Ong Hing, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco

Introduction

We are a nation of immigrants, but we also are a nation that loves to debate immigration policy, and that debate reflects the battle over how we define who is an American.  The anti-immigrant movement in the United States is as strong as ever. Immigrant bashing is popular among politicians, talk radio hosts, private militiamen, and xenophobic grassroots organizations. They take full advantage of the high-tech era in which we live, as they complain about the “illegal alien invasion.” Their common thread is the rhetoric of fear. This hysteria leads to tragic policies that challenge us as a moral society. ICE raids, enormous funding for border enforcement, anti-immigrant ordinances, and record levels of detention are manifestations of the venom, while immigrants and citizen relatives are forced to suffer.

Arizona’s SB 1070 is an example of these results. The controversial law would make it a state crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents, bar state or local officials from enacting sanctuary laws, and crack down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting undocumented aliens. The intent of the legislation, major portions of which are currently enjoined, is to make life miserable for the undocumented in Arizona in hopes of achieving “attrition through enforcement.” Critics charge that the law invites racial profiling and exceeds state authority.

Continue reading…

11th Circuit twice overturns jury findings of racial discrimination

September 8, 2010 | Maya Roy | Tags: ,

After a long career at an Alabama poultry plant, John Hithon sued his employer, Tyson Foods, for racial discrimination because he alleged Tyson Foods denied him a promotion on two occasions because of his race.  In 2002, Hithon was awarded $1 million in damages by a jury.  The trial court found Hithon’s supervisor constantly referred to adult black men, including Hithon, as “boy” which helped prove Hithon was discriminated against in hiring decisions because of his race.  On appeal in 2005, the 11th Circuit remanded the case for new trial, finding use of the word “boy” by Hithon’s supervisor was not evidence of racial discrimination; however, if “boy” was modified with “black” or “white”, then the term could show discriminatory intent.  In 2006, the case reached the Supreme Court, which held that use of the term “boy” to describe an African-American man could, by itself, be considered evidence of racial discrimination.

On remand in 2007, the second jury found in favor of Hithon and awarded him $1.3 million in damages.  On August 20, 2010, the 11th Circuit reversed, stating evidence of use of the word “boy” by Hithon’s supervisor was not enough to support a jury’s finding of racial discrimination.  In fact, the 11th Circuit found the repeated use of the word “boy” constituted stray, ambiguous remarks which were non-racial in context.  It held no reasonable jury could have found racial discrimination occurred in Hithon’s case.

This case is important because it shows the hurdles we face as legal services advocates pursuing claims of racial discrimination.  It will be interesting to see if Hithon appeals again to the Supreme Court.  Given the Supreme Court’s recent hostility to racial discrimination claims brought by ethnic minorities, this case should be closely watched.

Unemployment continues to hit communities of color hardest

June 16, 2010 | Maya Roy | Tags:

Last week, the Economic Policy Institute published an issue brief entitled, “Uneven pain – Unemployment by metropolitan area and race.” The brief examines the impact of the recession on employment, specifically unemployment rates by race in fifty metropolitan areas.  In each of the fifty areas studied, unemployment rates for people of color were higher than for whites.  In some areas, such as Minneapolis, educational attainment did not bridge this race-based unemployment gap.

This information is not new and merely confirms what we as legal services advocates have seen our clients experience.  Although the information simply confirms this understanding, it remains important that we stay cognizant of the lasting impact of the recession on all of our clients.  Moreover, as the policy brief states, “[h]igh rates of unemployment cause immediate harm to families and communities, and they also cause long-term social and economic damage that cannot be easily fixed even when the economy finally recovers.”  As legal aid advocates, we have an important role in assisting our unemployed clients to fight for their right to government benefits, including unemployment insurance benefits.  Our advocacy can help alleviate the adverse effects of the recession on our clients by ensuring they obtain benefits they are entitled to and can save them from financial straits that could lead to homelessness.

Unconscious Bias and the Courts

May 26, 2010 | Gillian Sonnad | Tags: , ,

Recently, progress has been made in helping courts to understand the concept of unconscious bias and consider it in their decision-making.  Plaintiffs’ firms and legal services organizations alike have found proving discrimination cases to be extremely difficult.  Often courts want to see a “smoking gun”; a memo, email, conversation, or other direct evidence that the defendant intentionally discriminated before they will side with a plaintiff.   However, Professor William T. Bielby from the University of Pennsylvania  has been working to help courts understand that such a smoking gun often doesn’t exist and isn’t strictly necessary.  His testimony and expert opinions have been key in helping to advance many large class action cases on behalf of women and minorities against some of the country’s biggest corporations,  including Wal-Mart.  In the employment setting, Professor Bielby cites too much management discretion as the biggest problem, saying that “the tendency to invoke gender stereotypes in making judgments about people is rapid and automatic,” and “as a result, people are often unaware of how stereotypes affect their perceptions and behavior,” including “individuals whose personal beliefs are relatively free of prejudice.”  In the case of Wal-Mart, Bielby found fault with how management candidates were identified.  Without a “systematic mechanism” for identifying candidates he believes managers often assumed that women would not want to relocate and thus would not identify them as candidates for management positions that would require a move.  Professor Bielby’s work in this area is essential to helping the courts and the legal system start to understand and address the unconscious and implicit biases that influence decision making.  Legal services organizations and advocates can look to his work and to the courts which are accepting these  arguments to help improve our own advocacy efforts in these areas.  

Older Posts