EEOC and the City of Greensboro.

Within the last hour, two sources have told me that the EEOC’s ruling that could clear the way for former and current black police officers to sue the city of Greensboro for discriminatory practices is imminent.

UPDATE: Per the first comment below, WFMY’s Frank Mickens is reporting… “The EEOC says the city of Greensboro violated the employment rights of dozens police officers.”

This is going to put the city of Greensboro in a very precarious position.  Namely, the city is going to have to defend itself against the racial allegations that cropped up in the police department under the leadership of former Chief David Wray.  These are the same allegations that City Manager was investigating after the release of the RMA report.  These are the same allegations that caused the lock-0ut of Wray from his office in January of ’06.

How will the city defend against something that they have said has been occuring for years?  This case screams for a settlement to the 32 officers who have filed with the EEOC (so far).

This entry was posted in Greensboro Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

12 Comments

  1. wfmynews2 watcher
    Posted August 2, 2007 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Find the story on WFMY News2′s website.

    http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/breaking/article.aspx?storyid=87752

  2. Posted August 2, 2007 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, watcher. Good work.

  3. Posted August 2, 2007 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    David, the question you raise is a good one. But if the report on the EEOC ruling is true, it raises the question as to what type of input the city provided the EEOC in its defense. Did the city try to defend itself, and if so, how?

    Of course, it would be very difficult to appear credible defending oneself when the city had presented a unilateral case previously in the City Attorney’s report that multiple instances of discrimination had taken place.

  4. Posted August 2, 2007 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    “Of course, it would be very difficult to appear credible defending oneself when the city had presented a unilateral case previously in the City Attorney’s report that multiple instances of discrimination had taken place.”

    Particularly in light of information we now have that was never disclosed by either the city manager/attorney or our daily newspaper regarding the Wray affair.

    The dots are still there to be connected, but we also need to remember that, as is the case with any government bureaucracy, the EEOC doesn’t exist to issue findings that “equal employment opportunity” has not been compromised.

  5. mick
    Posted August 3, 2007 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    May we assume that many of the same names will appear in the EEOC story and the Connect the dots. I guess we shall see.

  6. ottokitty
    Posted August 4, 2007 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

    Is there an actual ruling yet? I think the letters are analogous to a grand jury indictment, not a trial verdict, and the crappy reportage by channel 2 and the N&R makes it seem more significant than it truly is. All the coverage I have seen seems to imply the letters from the EEOC the black officers have received constitute some sort of finding. Isn’t it more accurate to say that the EEOC has said nothing more than they think there MAY be something to the accusation of discrimination and the complaint process will proceed? If the evidence of discrimination is based on the RMA and city attorneys reports in isolation, sure it looks bad for the GPD, but as anyone who has read the Bledsoe series knows, there is a whole lot to the story that may not be before the EEOC. Yet.

  7. Posted August 5, 2007 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    “Is there an actual ruling yet? I think the letters are analogous to a grand jury indictment, not a trial verdict, and the crappy reportage by channel 2 and the N&R makes it seem more significant than it truly is.”

    It’s not even comparable to an indictment.

    It’s just comparable to a typical Lorraine Ahearn story about the Wray nonsense in the N&R, which is why their emphasis of the EEOC story is no surprise.

  8. Posted August 5, 2007 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Emphasis? Maybe I missed something but I’ve only seen the initial coverage from the N&R right after the ruling. This was also covered by other local outlets.

  9. Elizabeth Wheaton
    Posted August 5, 2007 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    ottokitty is right, I believe. From waaay back in my employment rights days, EEoc issued what were called right to sue letters which were NOT a finding of fact, but as ottok says merely permission to proceed into federal court.

    I didn’t see the News2 report but have emailed Eric Townsend to suggest that he needs to explain the distinction.

    David… Am I doing something wrong? I can’t see what I’m typing here unless I highlight it with my cursor. I’m on a Mac if that makes any difference. Thx. Liz

  10. Elizabeth Wheaton
    Posted August 6, 2007 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    UPDATE: Eric Townsend sent a lenghty reply to my query about this being a right-to-sue letter. It’s not. He quoted part of the letter which does in fact state that EEOC found evidence of discrimination and will try to help the city/officers reach a settlement. If they can’t agree, then the EEOC will issue the right-to-sue.

    My apologies for any confusion I’ve caused.

  11. Posted August 6, 2007 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    maybe if the N&R would put the letter online we could all readit for ourselves..seems like the web friendly, fully disclosed N&R would have it up for all to read.

  12. Ben B.
    Posted February 28, 2008 at 5:23 am | Permalink

    Would any news media organization be interested in an incident
    that involved Lt. James Hinson and this 30 year white male veteran
    law enforcement, and tactical armed security professional that
    occured sometime back in 1999 or 2000 when Hinson was a Sergeant.
    I’ve never worked for GPD, but the officers that I’ve known for
    many years from this department have inspired me to come forward
    with this addtional information on this GPD employee. It will tell the true story as to this one officers agenda when it comes
    to being a WHITE TAX PAYING CITIZEN of Greensboro who has been
    openly violated in public by this GPD officer.

One Trackback

  1. [...] varies. Greensboro City Council members are leaning toward an appeal; Hoggard says the case “screams for a settlement,” while ConAlt says take it to court, although he [...]