EEOC Attorney Wins "Reverse" Discrimination Case Against the EEOC!

          Joseph Ray Terry had all the right credentials: as a lawyer, he had spent many years fighting discrimination against minorities. His employer, the EEOC, had consistently given Mr. Terry "superior" and "excellent" performance reviews. But Mr. Terry was white, and he was forced to repeatedly sue the EEOC in order to win a promotion for which he had been applying for over 10 years!

          Mr. Terry is a white, Louisiana-trained lawyer. In 1984 he submitted his first application within EEOC to become a district director for EEOC. Over the next 10 years EEOC repeatedly turned Terry down because he is white, and EEOC promoted many "disadvantaged minorites" ahead of Mr. Terry, one of whom did not even have a high school diploma.

        Joseph Ray Terry works for the EEOC and, according to the EEOC's own personnel records, Mr. Terry is and always has been an eminently well-qualified civil rights attorney who has spent his entire legal career fighting for the rights of minorities.

       Yet Mr. Terry's own bosses at the EEOC have been found guilty of discriminating against him because he is white!

          Since 1984 Mr. Terry had been repeatedly refused promotion within the EEOC -- and was forced to watch while less-qualifed blacks were promoted ahead of him, some of whom did not even have a high school diploma. Mr. Terry was ultimately forced to sue his employer -- the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- in order to gain his well-deserved promotion.

          Thus, in 1996, after over 10 years of being turned down by EEOC for a promotion because of his skin color (and in spite of his golden credentials and legal qualifications), Mr. Terry was finally awarded his promotion, monetary damages, and compensation for emotional distress.

          Joseph Ray Terry's case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in 1996. Presiding Judge Jon P. McCalla rendered the decision in favor of Mr. Terry at that time.

Sidebar: Judge McCalla was appointed to the bench in 1992 by the elder Bush (former President George H.W. Bush). Liberals and other apologists for crimes committed by so-called "disadvantaged" minorities despise Judge McCalla because he has dared to rule against black criminal defendants in spite of their supposed "social disadvantage". In fact, liberal "civil rights" groups have repeatedly tried to have Judge McCalla impeached.

      The Joseph Ray Terry / EEOC case is one of the rare ones where the EEOC has been forced to acknowledge their pattern of discriminating against non-minority males!

EEOC is careful not to widely distribute its internal statistics regarding the number of minorities vs. the number of non-minorities hired and promoted within the agency. But the facts of EEOC's pattern of "reverse discrimination" were clearly revealed during Mr. Terry’s law suit.

According to the EEOC’s own 1995 annual report, almost 50% of white-collar jobs within the EEOC are held by blacks, even though blacks comprise less than 10% of the civilian work force! Additionally, the percentage of Hispanics employed at the EEOC is 200% higher than the percentage of Hispanics in the civilian work force. These data are wildly out of line with even the most liberal interpretation of "Race-Based Affirmative Action" which presumes that workers within an agency or employer organization should be represented in proportion to their numbers in the general population.

          In 1996 Memphis U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla ruled that the EEOC had grossly violated the laws it is supposed to defend when it repeatedly refused to promote Joseph Ray Terry to a job for which he was very well qualified. Mr. Terry is white.

          From 1984 to 1996 Mr. Terry had been passed over for promotion 10 times by less qualified individuals because they were minorities and Terry was not.

          By 1987 Mr. Joseph Ray Terry had already been turned down several times for promotion within EEOC in spite of his sterling credentials and "best" performance reviews. In 1987 there were 21 district directors at EEOC, 19 of which were minorities, and only 2 of which were white males!

          Joseph Ray Terry had spent his entire professional career fighting for civil rights and protection of the "historically disadvantaged" in our society! He has credentials, education, experience, and high-level, government-sponsored training.

          Yet the minority candidates who were promoted over Mr. Terry were not nearly as well qualified: one minority individual promoted over Terry did not even have a high school diploma.

          The Court and Judge McCalla also determined that many of the minority candidates promoted over Mr. Terry lacked any or all of: the high-level government training Mr. Terry had; the experience in Civil Rights earned by Mr. Terry; the education and technical skills possessed by Mr. Terry; and/or the glowing "superior" performance reviews Mr. Terry always received from his EEOC bosses! The Judge and the Court examined many dozens of EEOC records and countless pages of witness testimony in arriving at their decision in favor of Joseph Ray Terry’s claim of "reverse" discrimination!

          In 1996, the Judge ordered EEOC to pay Mr. Terry $150,000 in damages, and over $8,000 for stress. The amount of back-pay awarded to Joseph Ray Terry is not available for publication at this time. Finally, the Judge ordered the EEOC to promote Mr. Terry to the position of deputy general counsel for which he had been applying.

More Background:...

Here's another interesting little-discussed discrimination pattern: if you google "new teachers" or "older teachers" and "age discrimination" you'd be amazed how many people out there in these United States are well aware of age discrimination against new, older teachers in this country, or just older teachers.

According to all these forums I just read, district don't want to pay higher health insurance costs for older teachers, and I can you from all my experience in teaching, districts certainly don't want to spend the money to mentor new teachers.

i also think the union has a big role in this type of discrimination against older, new teachers because those kind of teachers often come from other careers, and have a very different work ethic than what the union wants a teacher to do, which is punch a clock. So, you have the union feeling very threatened by older, 2nd career teachers, as many on this particular forum, here on FR, already know.

It's too bad no one has yet sued a school district in a huge class action lawsuit. Maybe sue the district for a $1 (so the taxpayers don't have to pay, but sue the district administrators personally, for millions -- pursuant to the new ruling by the 11th Circuit Federal Court in Atlanta in the Bricoe vs, White case, from Collier County, FL, where a teacher won the right to hold personally liable a superintendent for civil damages when the teacher alleged the superinitendent had violated the teacher's right to free speech.

Isn't discrimination a form of violating one's right to free speech, too? Just wondering...

Thanks for the ping.

Typical lib; the rules apply to others. He spent his career going against "non-minorities", yet when it was done to him, he sues! At least the EEOC was consistent, unlilke him.

Aside from that, I'm glad he was successful. It shouldn't be your ethnic background, skin color, etc. that gets you a job or promotion; it should be based on your abilities and credentials.

The level of anti-white and anti-male racism in the federal government is of such a level that I would not have believed it unless I saw it in action firsthand. That the EEOC got caught doing it is ironic. I wonder, will all white males be forced to endure a decade of discrimination (and have a law degree and expertise in discrimination law) before having any recourse?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.