By Anna Pulley
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Erin Sherbert
By Rachel Swan
By Joe Eskenazi
By Erin Sherbert
By Erin Sherbert
"It was a secure, nice job where I could make some money and learn some things," says Morgan, who had done electrical work in the Air Force. "I thought it would be a job I could retire from."
But within a few months, Morgan began to wonder whether he was being treated differently because he is black. He soon learned that he had been hired as an "electrician helper" and received less pay than everyone else, even though he was doing the same work. He was also the only African-American doing electrical work.
As time passed, Morgan became convinced he was being discriminated against, especially, he says, when he started overhearing white Amtrak supervisors using racial slurs against African-American co-workers. He was continuously disciplined for things white co-workers were not charged with, he says, and repeatedly denied professional training, with management allegedly telling him that he lacked the mental capacity for the work.
"I would get physically sick coming to the yard," he says. "I would always envision what maneuvers I'd have to make to get through an eight-hour day."
In 1995, after he had complained many times about racism at the yard, Morgan was fired for threatening a supervisor, and he filed a discrimination lawsuit against Amtrak. The company denies all allegations of discrimination.
But Morgan's case is different from the approximately 80,000 discrimination complaints filed every year with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After seven years of trial and appeal, Morgan's lawsuit has made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and legal experts say the verdict could have a substantial impact on how discrimination cases are filed from now on. A decision will be returned by July.
The high court will essentially answer the question: Is there a limit to how far back in time someone can go in making a case for discrimination lawsuits?
If the Supreme Court rejects Morgan's argument that he should be able to use long-term evidence of discrimination, "it makes it more likely that there will be discrimination cases for which there is no remedy," Grossman says.
Morgan says he had no idea his case would become entangled for so long in such grand legal issues. "When I first filed the lawsuit, I thought they'd give me a couple bucks and give me my job back. But that was not to happen," Morgan says, shaking his head.
For all of the discrimination Morgan claims he endured in his five years at Amtrak, he says the incident that affected him the most didn't have anything to do with him.
"There was a bomb scare in one of the trains," Morgan says, "and all the employees were cleared to one side. And [the supervisor] picked out an African-American employee and said, 'Here's a flashlight, you're going to look for a bomb.'
"That was the first time I knew that it wasn't just me," Morgan says. "Eddie's the type that will go with the program. But I said, 'Wait, he's no bomb expert. What is Amtrak going to give Eddie's family if he blows up?' [The supervisor] told me to shut up."
Morgan began formally complaining about the alleged racial discrimination in October 1991, when he wrote a letter to the company's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office alleging that he had been told by a supervisor that he stood a "snowball's chance in hell" of entering an apprenticeship program. A few days later, Morgan was disciplined by management for insubordinate behavior. Amtrak never formally responded to the complaint.
In Morgan's court documents, several Amtrak employees also allege that the Oakland yard was a racist environment, with Amtrak supervisors frequently using racial slurs like "shuffle-butt niggers" to refer to African-American employees. One employee says he found racist notes and pictures in his locker.
Some of Morgan's frequent complaints to Amtrak's EEO were investigated; others received no response. In the meantime, Morgan continued to rack up disciplinary charges for things like taking extra sick days, not finishing his work, and being insubordinate. In court files, a psychological profile solicited from Amtrak states that Morgan is "prone to employ fluctuating and erratic interpersonal skills" and "readily takes issue with authority figures through oppositional behaviors." But Morgan contends that white employees who did the same things did not face similar disciplinary actions.
Morgan's lawsuit, however, turns on a technical legal doctrine involving time limits. Though Morgan says he faced discrimination for the five years he worked at the Oakland yard, he was only allowed to present evidence that occurred in the 300 days before he filed his claim.
Under federal and state laws, employees who believe they are victims of discrimination must file a claim with the EEOC within 300 days in order to pursue a lawsuit. That time frame becomes a set window for looking at discrimination in court.