Southern Poverty Law Center - North Carolina

Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), et al. v. North Carolina

Erin.Fitzgerald — Tue, 05 Dec 2017 22:17:50 +0000

A North Carolina state law guts the ability of farmworkers to organize and make collective bargaining agreements with employers.

North Carolina farmworkers and a coalition of civil rights groups – including the ��Խ� – sued to block implementation of the law on November 15, 2017 in federal district court. The suit was filed on behalf of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) and two farmworkers, and the defendants are North Carolina Attorney General Joshua Stein and Marion R. Warren, director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.

The lawsuit argues that the North Carolina Farm Act of 2017 impedes farmworkers’ First Amendment right to participate in unions. The suit also asserts that the law is discriminatory, as more than 90 percent of the state’s agricultural workers are Latino. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the government cannot impose special burdens on expressive associations such as unions.

Specifically, the state law bars farmworker unions from entering into agreements with employers to have union dues transferred from paychecks — even if the union members want it, and even if the employer agrees to the arrangement. Because North Carolina is a so-called “right-to-work” state, dues deductions can only occur when individual workers choose to have dues deducted.

Many of FLOC’s members are guest-workers who lack ready access to U.S. bank accounts, credit cards and other means of making regular union dues payments, and they therefore rely on dues transfer arrangements to pay their union dues. If those arrangements become invalid, the union will be required to divert most of its limited resources to collecting dues individually from each worker.

The law’s primary sponsor was state Sen. Brent Jackson, who owns Jackson Farming Company and was sued for wage theft by Latino farmworkers who were helped by FLOC. State Rep. Jimmy Dixon, an owner of Jimmy Dixon farm in Duplin County, was the only legislator to speak in favor of the anti-worker provisions in the bill on the House floor. He said the law was necessary because “there seems to be a growing wave of folks that are interested in farm labor.”

More than 100,000 farmworkers provide labor to North Carolina farms, helping to generate more than $12 billion for the state economy. The vast majority are Latinos and work seasonally, many under temporary H2A visas.

Date Filed

November 15, 2017

Issue Area

Immigrant Justice

Workers’ Rights

Plaintiffs

Farm Labor Organizing Committee, Victor Toledo Vences, and Valentin Alvarado Hernandez

Defendants

Joshua Stein, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Marion R. Warren, Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts

Co-Counsel

ACLU Foundation and ACLU of North Carolina, North Carolina Justice Center, Law Office of Robert J. Willis.

Active Case

Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), et al. v. North Carolina

North Carolina schools discrimination complaint

admin — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:47:57 +0000

Two North Carolina school districts discriminated against immigrant children by denying, delaying or discouraging their enrollment, incidents that appeared to be symptomatic of a larger problem of discrimination in school districts across the state.

The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a federal civil rights complaint describing discrimination at Buncombe County Schools and Union County Public Schools. The complaint urged the U.S. Department of Justice to launch a federal investigation into the school districts.

It also urged the Justice Department to require the districts to adopt a nondiscrimination policy and to provide training to ensure that the law is followed.

The complaint outlines how “unaccompanied” immigrant children – children who arrive in the United States without a parent or legal guardian and are placed in the care of a sponsor, such as a family member – were turned away from the schoolhouse door because of their limited English proficiency, age or national origin.

It describes how “C.V.” had hoped to enroll in high school in Buncombe County, N.C. – part of her plan to get a high school diploma and attend cosmetology school. But school officials twice denied the 17-year-old Honduran immigrant’s application. They told her she was too old, even though North Carolina law says all students under 21 are entitled to a public education in the school district in which they live.

It also describes discrimination faced by “F.C.,” a native of Guatemala who arrived in the United States without his parents but lived with them in Marshville, N.C. His mother is recognized as his sponsor. When F.C.’s mother attempted to enroll him in Forest Hills High School, she was told her 17-year-old son was too old for school. F.C. was referred to a GED program at a local community college.

At the college, F.C.’s mother was told her son was too young for the GED program and to try to enroll him in high school again. At the high school, she was told that F.C. – a native Spanish speaker who understands little or no English – would not be enrolled until after he took an ESL exam. F.C. was unable to complete the exam because it was in English. The person administering the exam helped F.C. submit an enrollment application that finally allowed him to attend Forest Hills High School in the Union County School District.

The discrimination encountered by these children is a violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bar discrimination on the basis of national origin in federally funded public schools, according to the complaint. The complaint also notes that the U.S. Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe that it is unconstitutional to deny a child present in the United States a public education, regardless of their federal immigration status.

Date Filed

February 13, 2014

Issue Area

Children's Rights

North Carolina schools discrimination complaint

United Farm Workers, et al., v. North Carolina Growers Association, et al.

admin — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:30:58 +0000

In the spring of 2009, U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis suspended regulations for the H-2A guestworker program that would have slashed wages for guestworkers and U.S. workers alike.

The decision meant guestworker employers would pay wages based on the previous regulations, which had been in effect for 20 years. These wages would be higher than the wages required by the new regulations passed in the waning days of the Bush administration in late 2008.

A federal court blocked the secretary’s suspension from going into effect after a group of guestworker employers filed suit. The Southern Poverty Law Center intervened in the case on behalf of H-2A guestworkers to seek to recover the higher wages they would have earned under the suspension.

Date Filed

October 22, 2012

Issue Area

Immigrant Justice

Co-Counsel

Andrew H. Turner, Gregory S. Schell, Robert J. Willis

United Farm Workers, et al., v. North Carolina Growers Association, et al.

N.C. Military Veteran Discrimination

admin — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:12:05 +0000

The Asheville Buncombe Community Christian Ministry in North Carolina failed to provide female military veterans with the same job training classes male veterans received through the organization’s federally funded programs.

Female veterans were excluded from job training and educational programs provided to male veterans such as truck driving, training for “green” jobs and culinary arts. Instead, female veterans were offered classes such as knitting, art therapy, yoga, meditation, how to de-clutter your room, self-esteem and Bible study.

The ��Խ� filed a sex discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor against the organization. The complaint, filed on behalf of U.S. Army veteran Emily Bagby and other female veterans, describes how the organization’s failure to provide the same services to female veterans is discrimination on the basis of gender – a violation of the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of the Workforce Investment Act administered by the Department of Labor.

The ��Խ�’s complaint asked the department to end this discrimination by compelling the organization to overhaul its policies. The complaint also urged the department to monitor the organization’s programs to ensure it no longer discriminates against female veterans.

The ministry is composed of approximately 300 churches in Asheville and Buncombe County, N.C. It provided services to veterans, the homeless and families in poverty. It received funding from the Department of Labor’s Veterans Workforce Investment Program and the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program for its job training programs and services for veterans. It received $200,000 from the Department of Labor to help re-integrate homeless veterans into the civilian workforce through job training and other services in 2012.

The organization also received federal aid through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Grant and Per Diem Program. This money provides supportive housing and services to homeless veterans. With four such programs, which encompass 158 beds for homeless men and women, it made Asheville Buncombe Community Christian Ministry the third largest contractor of Grant and Per Diem Program services in the country.

Date Filed

July 26, 2012

N.C. Military Veteran Discrimination

Wake County (N.C.) Public Schools

admin — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:50:13 +0000

Wake County

North Carolina’s Wake County Public School System denied Spanish-speaking parents the opportunity to participate in their children’s education. The school system provided school notices, such as notices of long-term suspensions and special education materials, in English to English-speaking parents but failed to provide this information to Spanish-speaking parents in Spanish – discriminating against these students and violating state and federal law. The Southern Poverty Law Center and Advocates for Children’s Services, a project of Legal Aid of North Carolina, filed a complaint against the school district with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

After the Office for Civil Rights announced an investigation, the district agreed to develop a plan to ensure limited-English-proficient (LEP) parents have the opportunity to participate in their child’s education.

The complaint outlines how the school district failed to comply with the law in at least two areas:

Inadequate translation of written documents related to special education services and processes. LEP parents routinely were denied written information regarding special education services for their children, such as notice of meetings, progress reports and Individualized Education Programs.

Inadequate translation of written documents related to long-term suspensions. Latino students in the district were disproportionately suspended at a rate 2.6 times greater than white students. LEP parents routinely were denied adequate written notice of long-term suspension recommendations, information about students’ suspension and steps for appealing it or enrolling the student in alternative education.

The complaint described how the school system’s current policies prevented LEP parents from actively participating in the education of their children. For example, M.H., a sixth-grade Latino student with a learning disability, was recommended for long-term suspension. His mother’s native language is Spanish and she understood little spoken or written English. The school provided all of the written information on the individualized facts of M.H.'s alleged offense to his mother in English only.

This information is necessary for a parent to effectively appeal a suspension. To understand what was happening to her son, M.H.’s mother had to seek translation from her son’s tutor, who did not work for the district and was not fluent in Spanish.

Latino students comprise 15 percent of the district’s student population and LEP students are 7.5 percent of the student population. Federally funded school districts are required by various laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to ensure that non-English speaking students have a meaningful opportunity to participate in education programs. This requires that schools provide LEP parents with important information in a language they can understand.

News Items & Related Articles

03/13/2013
��Խ� urges North Carolina school district to strictly enforce plan resolving civil rights complaint

07/05/2012
DOE to Investigate N.C. School System Following Complaint by ��Խ� and Advocates for Children’s Services

06/13/2012
Complaint Filed Against N.C. School System to Stop Discrimination Against Latino Students

05/08/2012
N.C. School System Must Stop Discrimination Against Latino Students

Date Filed

June 12, 2012

Issue Area

Children's Rights

Wake County (N.C.) Public Schools

Durham Public Schools

admin — Fri, 13 May 2011 19:56:55 +0000

Latino students in Durham, N.C, public schools were subjected to pervasive discrimination throughout the school district. The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a federal complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights on behalf of these students. The ��Խ� eventually reached an agreement with Durham Public Schools to end the discriminatory practices.

The Southern Poverty Law Center initially submitted a letter to the district’s superintendent demanding an end to the discrimination. The letter, sent on behalf of more than 6,000 students with limited English proficiency (LEP) and their families, described discrimination that includes a high school teacher pushing a Latino student against the wall and telling the student to “go back to your own country.” At the same high school, a teacher used a slur against Latino students.

The school district also had only three Spanish language interpreters for more than 5,300 students whose primary language is Spanish. Under federal law, the school must provide these students and their families with access to interpreters and important school documents in a language they can understand. The district failed to comply with the law.

After the school district issued a vague and non-committal response to the letter, the ��Խ� filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights. The ��Խ� reached an agreement with the Durham Public Schools system, which pledged to strengthen its anti-discrimination policy and to create new policies that will ensure thousands of non-English speaking students and their families are not excluded from education programs.

The agreement included translating important documents and other parental notifications into the native language of a student’s parents. The district also agreed to provide interpreters to assist parents with limited English proficiency in understanding documents and other parental notifications.

Date Filed

April 28, 2011

Issue Area

Children's Rights

Durham Public Schools

U.S. EEOC, et al. v. Tuscarora Yarns

admin — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:53:16 +0000

Tuscarora Yarns Case

A Latina factory worker in North Carolina was brutally assaulted by the plant manager after she had earlier reported his sexual harassment to officials of the yarn company that employed her, according to a federal court complaint filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The complaint, part of a motion filed by the ��Խ�, alleged that Tuscarora Yarns Inc. of Oakboro, N.C., failed to protect the woman, who speaks very little English, after she told superiors about unwelcome sexual advances, comments, innuendo and physical contact by the manager in 2007.

The ��Խ� motion sought to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Salisbury Division. The court granted the ��Խ�’s motion to intervene in the case, allowing the woman to become a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the company. The woman’s identity is being withheld because of the nature of the suit.

Date Filed

May 21, 2009

Status

Settled

Court where filed

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

Issue Area

Immigrant Justice

Plaintiffs

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al.

Defendants

Tuscarora Yarns

U.S. EEOC, et al. v. Tuscarora Yarns

Person v. Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

admin — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:58:14 +0000

Paramilitary Klan Groups

Shutting down Klan paramilitary camps
Bearing guns and dressed in paramilitary uniforms, members of the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (a.k.a. Confederate Knights of the Ku Klux Klan) terrorized a black prison guard and his family in 1982. They pointed guns and shouted racial slogans at a white woman who invited black friends to her home. A black woman was nearly run off the road. A man on his way to work was harassed on a dead-end road.

One African-American man quit his job and left the state, but Bobby Person, the black prison guard, became the lead plaintiff in the Center's lawsuit against the Klan. Person's harassment began after he complained that whites were unfairly being promoted over him at his job.

During the litigation, the Klansmen continued harassing and threatening the plaintiffs, resulting in the court issuing an order prohibiting any person from blocking hallways and doorways or otherwise interfering with other persons inside the federal courthouse.

On January 18, 1985, the Court issued a consent order that prohibited Glenn Miller, the group's Grand Dragon, and members of the group from training and operating a paramilitary organization; marching or parading in black neighborhoods; and harassing, intimidating, threatening or harming any black person or white person who associates with black persons. The plaintiff's claims for damages were dismissed and the Consent Decree was made final in September.

Less than a year later, however, Miller and others were found guilty of criminal contempt for violating the consent order and North Carolina state law. Having changed the group's name to the White Patriot Party, Miller resumed paramilitary operations and Klan business as usual. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison, six months suspended sentence and 3 years probation during which he could not associate with any members of the White Patriot Party or other racist groups.

Refusing to accept the court-ordered exile from the white supremacist movement, Miller went underground, declared war on Jews and the federal government and was again arrested and served three years in federal prison on a weapons charge.

Date Filed

June 05, 1984

Date(s) of Disposition

01/18/1985: Consent decree approved
07/25/1986: Criminal contempt verdict issued
08/16/1988: Contempt verdict upheld by Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (854 F.2d 656)

Status

Won

Court where filed

USDC Eastern District of North Carolina

Issue Area

Hate & Extremism

Plaintiffs

Bobby Person, class of North Carolina African Americans

Defendants

Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan; Glenn Miller, Grand Dragon

Person v. Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

Case Number

84-534

Southern Poverty Law Center - North Carolina

Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), et al. v. North Carolina

Date Filed

Issue Area

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), et al. v. North Carolina

North Carolina schools discrimination complaint

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

North Carolina schools discrimination complaint

United Farm Workers, et al., v. North Carolina Growers Association, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

United Farm Workers, et al., v. North Carolina Growers Association, et al.

N.C. Military Veteran Discrimination

Date Filed

Related Documents

N.C. Military Veteran Discrimination

Wake County (N.C.) Public Schools

Wake County

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Wake County (N.C.) Public Schools

Durham Public Schools

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Durham Public Schools

U.S. EEOC, et al. v. Tuscarora Yarns

Tuscarora Yarns Case

Date Filed

Status

Court where filed

Issue Area

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Related Documents

U.S. EEOC, et al. v. Tuscarora Yarns

Person v. Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

Paramilitary Klan Groups

Date Filed

Date(s) of Disposition

Status

Court where filed

Issue Area

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Related Documents

Person v. Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

Case Number