Thread: Judge Rules Suburban New York Village Discriminated Against

Does anyone live near this village?

While checking out some of the previous news items about this case, I learned that originally there were 8 plaintiffs. Two dropped off the lawsuit when the judge said they had to declare their status and it would become part of the public record.

That leads me to believe that 6 men are either looking for some new documents, or if they were emboldened by the outcome of this law suit, they may be prime candidates for deportation.

There's a 70-page transcript - it should be interesting reading.

Wouldn't it be poetic justice if these guys had to celebrate their "victory" in their warm casas back home while their friends stand in the cold soliciting work, wondering when they will be next?!?


Nov 20, 9:43 PM EST

Judge Rules Suburban New York Village Discriminated Against Hispanic Day Laborers

By JIM FITZGERALD
Associated Press Writer

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) -- A suburban village discriminated against Hispanic day laborers when it closed a hiring site and stepped up police patrols on the streets where they looked for work, a federal judge ruled Monday.

"Since August 2004, and continuing into this past summer, the defendants have engaged in a campaign designed to drive out the Latino day laborers who gather on the streets of Mamaroneck to seek work," Judge Colleen McMahon wrote. "The fact that the day laborers were Latinos, and not whites, was, at least in part, a motivating factor in defendants' actions."

McMahon did not specify a remedy for the village of Mamaroneck, about 25 miles north of New York City, giving the two sides 10 days to make suggestions. And in a footnote at the end of the decision, she suggested there was still time for a settlement.

Attorney Kevin Plunkett, who represented the village, said it was a stretch for the judge to determine that discrimination played a role in the crackdown. He said the quality of life for residents of Mamaroneck - not race - was the chief concern of village officials.

"This group of people just happens to be Hispanic," he said. "What happens if 50 other people were assembled in the community? That has to be addressed."

Plunkett said he and village officials would review the ruling and discuss what steps to take next.

The village had argued that it was only enforcing existing laws when it beefed up the police presence in the area around the park and set up traffic checkpoints that inconvenienced the contractors who came looking for temporary workers.

Six Hispanic immigrant workers - all identified as John Doe for fear of retaliation by police or immigration authorities - took the village to court in September, seeking an injunction against what they called selective law enforcement and ethnic discrimination. They said the village violated their right to equal protection when they cracked down on the laborers.

"We're very pleased," said Cesar Perales, president of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented the day laborers. "The court found that indeed the village of Mamaroneck had engaged in intentional discrimination and was motivated by racism."

The ruling could influence the treatment elsewhere of day laborers, who have become an increasingly visible symbol of the immigration issue as they solicit construction and landscaping jobs.

The victory is at least the second this year for day laborers in federal court. In May, a federal judge prohibited the city of Redondo Beach, Calif., from arresting day laborers for violating a local ordinance against soliciting work in public.

YES! not far from me and near the KLINTONS.

need a LINK, June

.

Posted at:
http://www.prldef.org/

a federal judge prohibited the city of Redondo Beach, Calif., from arresting day laborers for violating a local ordinance against soliciting work in public.

And once again a "judge" (small caps) stands against the law and for the lawbreakers. This is unconsciousable!

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

YES! not far from me and near the KLINTONS.

need a LINK, June

.

I had a feeling (a sinking one) that this was near Hillary territory!

I'm familiar with White Plains, used to stop there on my way to Albany. It's a nice area.

If you have a link to the transcript would you send it to me or post here?

In the Mamoroneck decision, there was no evidence whatsoever that the day workers were illegal immigrants, only that they were all Latino and were foreigners. The justification given by the town for stopping the day labor site is that none of them lived in town, and they were causing problems for the neighborhood.

It turned out all of the plaintiffs were residents, none had ever been arrested or guilty of anything except looking for day labor jobs, which is not illegal. There was zero evidence that any of them were illegal immigrants. Reported problems in the neighborhood had nothing to do with the day laborers. One plaintiff was told by police "why don't you go back to wherever you came from."

The judge concluded there was no reason based upon fact for the town to harass the day workers and the contractors who hired them. There was a mountain of evidence that the workers were subject to constant harassment without any evidence they were breaking the law or bothering anyone. All I can say if you don't like my post is read the judge's decision for yourself.

Originally Posted by bquasius

In the Mamoroneck decision, there was no evidence whatsoever that the day workers were illegal immigrants, only that they were all Latino and were foreigners. The justification given by the town for stopping the day labor site is that none of them lived in town, and they were causing problems for the neighborhood.

It turned out all of the plaintiffs were residents, none had ever been arrested or guilty of anything except looking for day labor jobs, which is not illegal. There was zero evidence that any of them were illegal immigrants. Reported problems in the neighborhood had nothing to do with the day laborers. One plaintiff was told by police "why don't you go back to wherever you came from."

The judge concluded there was no reason based upon fact for the town to harass the day workers and the contractors who hired them. There was a mountain of evidence that the workers were subject to constant harassment without any evidence they were breaking the law or bothering anyone. All I can say if you don't like my post is read the judge's decision for yourself.

You seem to be confusing the rendering of a magistrate with actual fact. A better course would be to read the complaint and the filings and arguments by the defense.

I've not been able to find the defendant's filings anywhere on the internet. All I have read is that the day laborers are a mix of illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and U.S. Citizens.

Do you have the filings?

Originally Posted by bquasius

I've not been able to find the defendant's filings anywhere on the internet. All I have read is that the day laborers are a mix of illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and U.S. Citizens.

Do you have the filings?

No, I don't, but this story has not been big news down here in Texas.

First of all, that statement is not quite accurate.
ALL 6 were entered as JOHN DOE 1/2/3/4/5/6

They've bothered women and children.
The park is UNUSABLE by females and young ones due to the problems with the "day laborers."

Mamaroneck has EVERY RIGHT to place their Police near any public area to keep it safe for their TAXPAYERS.

let's be fair and accurate in our information for posterity, shall we?

*** A KLINTON appointed judge is she.

.