USA: Denied jobs, blacks in Iowa test new bias theory

Another BS white-bashing law suit. Up to 6000 African Americans are suing the Iowa state government because they have decided that managers subconsciously favored employing Whites over them. Just imagine for a moment if this class action wins. You'll have every minority with a sob story suing White employers because they didn't hire them due to subconscious racism. This in a state with a White population of 91%. I don't know about you, but frankly I'm getting really tired of this Black race card hustling. It's all over the world. Even Obama and his supporters play the race card constantly. It's as if it's part of their genetic makeup. It must really irritate them that they want to live in a Black world but with White advantage and White tax money. This is the result of slowly boiling the frog. The frog is now in hot water and ready to explode. It started with the Civil rights movement in the 1960's. Then the democrats decided that the poor Blacks (and Whites) needed welfare to survive. Now you sit with an entitlement society where nearly 50% don't contribute to the upkeep of the country. And still they want more. Well, why don't they go out and start their own businesses? That way no one can discriminate against them. Better yet, they can employ only Black people to work there. I can almost guarantee that Whites won't sue them for subconscious racism - we really couldn't care less about them. Can you imagine what every White employer will be subjected to if they win this law suit? It's going to be, either you hire me or I'll sue you. America - land of the free!

In a case closely watched by civil rights activists, an Iowa judge will soon decide whether to grant thousands of black employees and job applicants monetary damages for hiring practices used by Iowa state government that they say have disadvantaged them.

Experts say the case is the largest class-action lawsuit of its kind against an entire state government's civil service system, and tests a legal theory that social science and statistics alone can prove widespread discrimination.

The plaintiffs — up to 6,000 African-Americans passed over for state jobs and promotions dating back to 2003 — do not say they faced overt racism or discriminatory hiring tests in Iowa, a state that is 91 percent white. Instead, their lawyers argue that managers subconsciously favored whites across state government, leaving blacks at a disadvantage in decisions over who got interviewed, hired and promoted.

Judge Robert Blink's decision, expected in coming weeks, could award damages and mandate changes in state personnel policies or dismiss a case that represents a growing front of discrimination litigation.

"Whenever there is a case like this that goes to trial, it's of interest to all of us," said Jocelyn Larkin, executive director of the Impact Fund, a Berkeley, Calif.-based nonprofit that supports employment discrimination lawsuits and has followed the case.

Similar cases against local governments have failed because proving broad bias is extraordinarily difficult, with a myriad of possible factors to explain disparities, said David Friedland, a California human resources consultant who is an expert on discrimination in hiring. Success in Iowa could encourage similar lawsuits elsewhere, he said.

University of Washington psychology professor Anthony Greenwald, an expert on implicit bias who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, said the decision will be important nationally because similar cases against corporations have usually been dismissed or settled before trial.

Scholars and employment lawyers have shown a growing interest in implicit bias in the last several years, after Greenwald and other scientists developed the Implicit Association Test to test racial stereotypes. Their research found an inherent preference for whites over blacks — in up to 80 percent of test-takers and among many people who do not consider themselves racist.

The theory hit a legal obstacle last year when the U.S. Supreme Court disqualified a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart's pay and promotion practices for women. The court found the class was too broad and failed to challenge a specific hiring practice as discriminatory.

Lawyers defending the state have cited that decision in asking Blink to dismiss the case. But the high court's decision did not specifically reject the theory of implicit bias, and dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that such claims can be allowed.

Class attorney Thomas Newkirk said the science and other evidence that shows disadvantaged groups such as blacks face employment discrimination in subtle ways "is becoming overwhelming."

"Clearly, the problem is not in Iowa alone, but we believe Iowa is the exactly the right place to ask society to take control of this important issue fairly for all races, and to seek a better future for all as a result," said Newkirk, who was recently honored by the Des Moines chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for his work on the case.

During a monthlong trial last fall, experts called by the plaintiffs' lawyers testified that blacks are hired at lower rates than whites with similar qualifications and receive less favorable evaluations and lower starting salaries. An employment consultant hired by the administration of Gov. Tom Vilsack, who served from 1999 to 2007, warned of hiring disparities between whites and minorities in a report issued after he left office. Larkin called that report a strong "and pretty unusual piece of evidence" proving the state was aware of problems.

Source