A new class action lawsuit alleges that McCormick & Schmick’s restaurants have a nationwide corporate policy and practice of preferring white employees over African-American employees for “front-of-the-house” positions.
The lawsuit also charges that:
- Managers throw away applications from African American job seekers without seriously considering them.
- When qualified African American applicants inquire about employment, managers and other company representatives sometimes tell them that the restaurant is not hiring, even though it is.
- While promotions are preferentially given to white workers without requiring a formal application process, African American employees are denied promotions to management positions.
- Managers have been instructed by corporate headquarters to “clean up the restaurant,” meaning to hire fewer African Americans and keep African-American employees away from front-of-the-house positions.
Press Release: “Class Counsel Announce That African American Employees Charge McCormick & Schmick’s Restaurants with Job Discrimination in Federal Court.”
Sphere: Related Content
on May 17, 2006
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing.
Subscribe by RSS
Subscribe by Email
Yup, the sharks are circling again: the press release names five law firms and a lawyers’ committee.
And only two class representative plaintiffs: one employee and one unsuccessful applicant.
The latter “was not hired as a bartender . . . despite having a diploma from bartending school and seven years experience as a bartender. An employee at the restaurant told him he did not get the job because he is African American.”
Wait a minute.
Do you suppose the employee who told him that was a manager who had been in on the decision? Or was it perhaps the disgruntled employee who became the other plaintiff, or some other fellow employee, in which case it was sheer rumor?
What if “clean up the restaurant” meant, well, clean it up, you know, pick up the trash, wipe down the tables, etc.? What if it meant fire employees who are slow and unproductive, with bad attendance and work ethics?
No matter, now the company’s been trashed in the media and will have to justify all of its hiring and promotion practices. Of course, if the allegations are proven, the company has violated the law, and I have no sympathy.
I’ve been reading the complaint, available for a nominal charge from the N.D. Calif. to anyone with a PACER account.
Here’s an interesting tidbit: the bartender applicant says “whites who were not more qualified were hired.” Not that they were less qualified. (If they were clearly less qualified, you can bet the complaint would say so.) So it looks like they were arguably equally qualified. In which case, where’s the discrimination?
The complaint raises disparate impact claims, which is where the action will be. Experts like Michael will slice and dice the data on the racial composition of the company’s applicant pool and workforce. And upon a proper showing of disparity, the company will have to prove that its hiring and promotion processes (or challenged aspects of them) are objective and justified by business necessity.