SAN FRANCISCO — It does happen. Not often enough, but it does take place: a defeat for racial bias and white supremacy.
On August 2, in a San Francisco Superior Court room, a jury punished the country's largest wholesale baker with a staggering US$120 million racial discrimination judgment for oppression and denying promotions to 17 of its black workers. "This shouldn't be happening in the 21st century", said the jury foreperson, "I have to stop talking now because I'm about to break down".
According to the August 3 San Francisco Chronicle, "When Ray Dunhams heard the award, the shipping clerk at the San Francisco bakery that makes Twinkies, HoHos, Dingdongs and Wonder Bread rested his face in hands and wept". "Hopefully, it sends a message to large corporations all over America to treat all people equal", said Dunhams, who was awarded $2.1 million of the total punitive damages.
The lawsuit was filed in 1998 after years of what the jurors called "malice and oppression" of the company's black employees. Interstate Brands Corporation of Kansas City, Missouri, owner of the local bakery, had denied black employees promotions and treated them with hostility.
The Chronicle reported some of the workers' experiences: "Gerald Brown, the corporation's first black truck driver who was awarded $17.9 million yesterday, says the judgment was well deserved. For four years, Brown said, he was subjected to racial jokes and abuse.
"My shop steward told me this one: 'How do you tell if a black man is well hung? When he stops kicking', said Brown. He added that he helped train white employees who quickly went on to be promoted while he stayed in the same job position. When he filed a formal complaint, he was fired. 'The hardest thing I've done in this world was bringing my boss to court', he said. 'But I'm glad I did it.'"
Another employee, who received $13.9 million, explained that when he was hit by a drunken driver in a Wonder Bread delivery trunk in 1996 he was put on light duty. But, unlike the white employees who answered the phone and did paperwork, he was forced to sweep the driveway.
Charles Wright received $15.5 million because of the emotional stress at the hands of company supervisors. They hurled racial slurs at him on almost a daily basis. He lost clumps of hair and broke out in rashes. "Today", he said, "was a fatal blow to racism in this country. I'm totally overwhelmed."
The company plans to appeal the jurors' ruling, particularly the punitive damages, which accounts for the bulk of the jurors' verdict. Only $11 million (reduced to $5.5 million by the judge) was awarded for lost wages, pain and suffering caused by the company's discrimination.
The size of the punitive award caused shock waves. According to a recent US Justice Department study, the majority of punitive awards for racial discrimination amount to less than $40,000 per person. This award is the largest since the landmark $176 million discrimination settlement against the oil giant Texaco four years ago.
The significance of the verdict is clearer if it is placed in the context of two decades of state and federal government efforts to undermine affirmative action programs and US corporations' erosion of earlier gains to lessen job discrimination.
The US Supreme Court issued a number of rulings in the mid-1980s that made most class action suits involving racial discrimination claims violations of the US Constitution. The rulings, at the height of Ronald Reagan's presidency, were part of a campaign by the right wing against alleged "reverse discrimination" against white people, white men in particular. The court's decisions limited remedies based on historical discrimination, the legacy of 350 years of slavery and legal segregation.
The court's narrower interpretation of civil rights' laws means that facts on the ground are no longer proof-positive of consciously organised discrimination. Intent to discriminate must now be proved. This is almost impossible, particularly since corporations and governments can intimidate victims and drag out cases for years before agreeing to a settlement (if one is forced upon them) in which guilt is never admitted.
The modern racists are also quick with their words. They now call themselves "centrists" (Democrats) or "compassionate conservatives" (Republicans) who simply oppose "racial preferences". They deny they are discriminating against employees and others based on skin colour. Their concept of "merit" and "most qualified" to justify biassed hiring and promotions becomes the not-so-funny oxymoron "benign racism".
But the world is more complex than simple black and white. There is no move by big business, or the federal government, to go back to the open and legal segregation of the past. The rapidly changing demographics of the US (non-whites will be a majority by the middle of the century) and the world (most people are Asian) make that an unwise, if not impossible, policy.
The San Francisco ruling shows the depth of racism in corporate USA and the extent to which many companies will go to keep black workers down. For every bakery case, there are dozens more that have been lost or not sent to jurors. It will require fundamental change in the system to end systemic institutional racism.
Nevertheless, the contradictory nature of racial (and class) politics doesn't diminish the significance of the Wonder Bread victory. Vigilance and determination by supporters of civil rights and workers' rights remain key to slowing the rot of racial oppression.
BY MALIK MIAH