Today, the ACR Project and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research jointly submitted a comment to the U.S. Department of Education, raising numerous potentially fatal defects in the Department's proposed alteration of the regulation governing the men's and women's athletic programs run by federal funding recipients.
Today, the ACR Project notified San Francisco, the San Francisco USD, the UC System, and California's Health and Human Services Agency of our intent to sue over the unconstitutional guaranteed income programs in which they participate.
The ACR Project demanded that American Airlines Group, Inc. publicly retract its discriminatory policies injecting race into the company’s internal and external contracting in ways that American law has banned for generations.
Today, on behalf of a concerned Levi's shareholder, the ACR Project demanded that the company publicly retract its illegal, discriminatory training policies. Levi's has chosen to make available to its employees training programs defined by the immutable characteristics of participants (excluding all employees from participation unless they are of -- respectively -- the right race, ethnicity, or sex). But an employer discriminating in the training it makes available based on race, national origin, and sex violates longstanding federal and state laws.
Today, on behalf of concerned Pfizer shareholders, the ACR Project demanded that the company publicly retract a set of illegal, discriminatory policies. Those policies inject race, ethnicity, and sex into every level of Pfizer's hiring and promotions, ranging from its summer internships to its top executives and directors. These policies -- admitted on Pfizer's webpage -- violate state and federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and a host of state laws, including those of New York (where Pfizer headquarters) and Delaware (where it incorporated).
Reports indicate that San Diego is set to "push" a "challenge" to the California State Constitution's prohibition against racial discrimination in public contracting, despite the actual knowledge of all involved that it would violate at least the state Constitution (and likely violate federal law, as well). We wrote, suggesting they should voluntarily call that off, before the Courts have to do so for them (and assign them, potentially, personal liability for resulting damages).
Last week, reports indicated that a single senior executive at Dropbox had tweeted that she and it would “choose to prioritize folks in our BIPOC and URM communities” in filling a job opening. As initially covered, the disclosure appeared to reflect a single executive’s rogue statement. The ACR Project’s further investigation has determined otherwise. Accordingly, on behalf of shareholders, we've demanded the retraction of the company's illegal, discriminatory hiring and promotional policies.
Today, on behalf of a set of concerned JPMorgan Chase [...]
Today, on behalf of a set of concerned Novartis shareholders, [...]
Today, on behalf of a set of concerned Starbucks shareholders, the ACR Project demanded that the company publicly retract the host of illegal, discriminatory policies it has adopted in the name of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity. Those policies facially violate the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1964. Several states have also adopted their own Civil Rights laws, which Starbucks' disclosed policies systematically violate.
The American Civil Rights Project, a public-interest law firm, seeks to assure that American law equally protects all Americans. The American Civil Rights Project is a tax-exempt, Texas non-profit under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.