Race or color discrimination can also occur if applicants or employees are treated unfavorably because they are married to or associated with a person of a certain race or color or because of a person’s connection with a race-based organization or group or a group that is generally associated with people of a certain color. In Chacon v. Ochs, the court applied Title VII protections to a plaintiff’s interracial association in a situation in which an employer created a hostile work environment by discriminating against a Caucasian woman because of her husband’s Hispanic race.1

Discrimination also can occur when the victim and the person inflicting the discrimination are of the same race or color. For example, a darker-skinned Latino can bring a claim for discrimination where a lighter-skinned Latino discriminated against him because of his skin tone.

In El-Hakem v. BJY, Inc., a court ruled that using a nickname can constitute discrimination under certain circumstances, even if the nickname doesn’t seem to be offensive because it isn’t a racial epithet. An employee of Arabic heritage sued his former employer and his supervisor under federal law. The supervisor repeatedly referred to him by a non-Arabic name in the belief that a “Western” name would be more acceptable to the employer’s clients. The employer called him “Manny” instead of his given name, “Mamdouh.” The defense argued that no racial discrimination occurred because the name was not a racial epithet.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument, stating that repeatedly using the nickname violated the employee’s protection from race discrimination based on ancestry or ethnic characteristics. The court ruled that, although the supervisor’s conduct may not have been especially severe, its frequency and pervasiveness were enough for a jury to conclude that it altered the conditions of employment and created a work environment that was racially hostile to a reasonable person of Arabic heritage.2

In addition to Title VII and FEHA protections, the Equal Pay Act prohibits paying employees doing substantially similar work differently because of their race or ethnicity. For more information, see Wage Equality - Equal Pay Act.

Section 1981 of the Reconstruction Era Civil Rights Act3 guarantees all persons, regardless of race, the right to make and enforce contracts. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 amended section 1981 to clarify that the statute applies to all aspects of contractual relationships, including the making, performance, notification and termination of contracts and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of the contractual relationship.4 Those who deprive others of their civil rights may be sued and held personally liable for the harm caused by such deprivation.5

FEHA also prohibits racial discrimination based on an employee’s “hairstyle.” For more information, see Dress Standard.

Title VII and Promotions

Discarding promotion-based exam results that negatively impact a particular race because of a fear of lawsuits is a violation of Title VII, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court did not question an employer’s efforts to ensure that all groups have a fair opportunity to apply for promotions and to participate in the employer’s process.

However, after the employer establishes a process and the promotion selection criteria are made clear, the employer cannot invalidate the results. Invalidating the results upsets the employee’s legitimate expectation that they will not be judged on the basis of race. Title VII does not prohibit an employer from considering how to design the exam or practice before administering it to ensure that all employees are treated fairly regardless of race.6

1. Chacon v. Ochs, 780 F. Supp. 680 (C.D. Cal. 1991)