Thursday, January 1, 2015
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
ANOTHER COMPANY PLEADS GUILTY TO PRICE FIXING ON SHIPING SERVICES OF CARS AND TRUCKS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, December 29, 2014
Third Company Agrees to Plead Guilty to Price Fixing on Ocean Shipping Services for Cars and Trucks
Company Agrees to Pay $59.4 Million Criminal Fine
Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK), a Japanese corporation, has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $59.4 million criminal fine for its involvement in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate customers, and rig bids of international ocean shipping services for roll-on, roll-off cargo, such as cars and trucks, to and from the United States and elsewhere, the Department of Justice announced today.
According to a one-count felony charge filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, NYK conspired to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating customers and routes, rigging bids and fixing prices for the sale of international ocean shipments of roll-on, roll-off cargo to and from the United States and elsewhere, including the Port of Baltimore. NYK participated in the conspiracy from at least February 1997 until at least September 2012. NYK has agreed to cooperate with the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation. The plea agreement is subject to court approval. NYK is the third company to agree to plead guilty in this investigation, bringing the total agreed-upon fines to over $135 million.
Roll-on, roll-off cargo is non-containerized cargo that can be both rolled onto and rolled off of an ocean-going vessel. Examples of this cargo include new and used cars and trucks and construction and agricultural equipment.
“This is another step in the effort to restore competition in the ocean shipping industry to the benefit of U.S. consumers,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “Including today’s charges, three companies have now agreed to plead guilty to participating in this long-running conspiracy. We are not done. Our investigation is ongoing.”
According to the charge, NYK and its co-conspirators conspired by agreeing on prices, allocating customers, agreeing to refrain from bidding against one another and exchanging customer pricing information. The department said the companies then charged fees in accordance with those agreements for international ocean shipping services for certain roll-on, roll-off cargo to and from the United States and elsewhere at collusive and non-competitive prices.
NYK is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of a $100 million criminal fine for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Today’s charge is the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging, and other anticompetitive conduct in the international roll-on, roll-off ocean shipping industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal I Section and the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office, along with assistance from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Internal Affairs, Washington Field Office/Special Investigations Unit.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Third Company Agrees to Plead Guilty to Price Fixing on Ocean Shipping Services for Cars and Trucks
Company Agrees to Pay $59.4 Million Criminal Fine
Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK), a Japanese corporation, has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $59.4 million criminal fine for its involvement in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate customers, and rig bids of international ocean shipping services for roll-on, roll-off cargo, such as cars and trucks, to and from the United States and elsewhere, the Department of Justice announced today.
According to a one-count felony charge filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, NYK conspired to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating customers and routes, rigging bids and fixing prices for the sale of international ocean shipments of roll-on, roll-off cargo to and from the United States and elsewhere, including the Port of Baltimore. NYK participated in the conspiracy from at least February 1997 until at least September 2012. NYK has agreed to cooperate with the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation. The plea agreement is subject to court approval. NYK is the third company to agree to plead guilty in this investigation, bringing the total agreed-upon fines to over $135 million.
Roll-on, roll-off cargo is non-containerized cargo that can be both rolled onto and rolled off of an ocean-going vessel. Examples of this cargo include new and used cars and trucks and construction and agricultural equipment.
“This is another step in the effort to restore competition in the ocean shipping industry to the benefit of U.S. consumers,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “Including today’s charges, three companies have now agreed to plead guilty to participating in this long-running conspiracy. We are not done. Our investigation is ongoing.”
According to the charge, NYK and its co-conspirators conspired by agreeing on prices, allocating customers, agreeing to refrain from bidding against one another and exchanging customer pricing information. The department said the companies then charged fees in accordance with those agreements for international ocean shipping services for certain roll-on, roll-off cargo to and from the United States and elsewhere at collusive and non-competitive prices.
NYK is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of a $100 million criminal fine for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Today’s charge is the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging, and other anticompetitive conduct in the international roll-on, roll-off ocean shipping industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal I Section and the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office, along with assistance from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Internal Affairs, Washington Field Office/Special Investigations Unit.
USA.gov TIPS FOR NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTIES
FROM: USA.gov
If you are hosting a New Year's Eve party, following a few simple rules could prevent a tragedy:
Plan ahead by naming a "designated driver." Make this your responsibility as the host.
Contact a local cab company to provide rides for your guests.
Serve non-alcoholic beverages as an option to your guests.
Stop serving alcohol to your guests several hours before the party ends.
Provide your guests with a place to stay overnight in your home.
If you are attending New Year's Eve parties and celebrations:
If you drink, don't drive.
Plan ahead and always designate a sober driver before the party or celebration begins.
If you are impaired, call a taxi, use mass transit, or get a sober friend or family member to come pick you up.
Or, stay where you are until you are sober.
Take the keys from someone if you think he/she is too impaired to drive.
If you are hosting a New Year's Eve party, following a few simple rules could prevent a tragedy:
Plan ahead by naming a "designated driver." Make this your responsibility as the host.
Contact a local cab company to provide rides for your guests.
Serve non-alcoholic beverages as an option to your guests.
Stop serving alcohol to your guests several hours before the party ends.
Provide your guests with a place to stay overnight in your home.
If you are attending New Year's Eve parties and celebrations:
If you drink, don't drive.
Plan ahead and always designate a sober driver before the party or celebration begins.
If you are impaired, call a taxi, use mass transit, or get a sober friend or family member to come pick you up.
Or, stay where you are until you are sober.
Take the keys from someone if you think he/she is too impaired to drive.
MOST WHO SELECTED 2015 HEALTH PLANS THROUGH HEALTHCARE.GOV ARE GETTING ASSISTANCE TO LOWER PREMIUMS
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
December 30, 2014
87 percent of people who selected 2015 plans through HealthCare.gov in first month of open enrollment are getting financial assistance to lower monthly premiums
A report released by the Department of Health and Human Services today provides the first detailed analysis of enrollment in the Marketplaces for the first month of the 2015 open enrollment period. About 87 percent of people who selected health insurance plans through HealthCare.gov for coverage beginning Jan. 1, 2015 were determined eligible for financial assistance to lower their monthly premiums, compared to 80 percent of enrollees who selected plans over a similar period last year. In addition, more than 4 million people in both the state and federal Marketplaces signed up for the first time or reenrolled in coverage for 2015 during the first month of open enrollment. That includes more than 3.4 million people who selected a plan in the 37 states that are using the HealthCare.gov platform for 2015, and more than 600,000 consumers who selected plans in the 14 states that are operating their own Marketplace platform for 2015.
Today’s report includes data through December 15 for the 37 states using the HealthCare.gov platform, and through December 13 for 12 states and the District of Columbia that are using their own Marketplace platforms. Data for California are through December 14. Data for automatic reenrollments are not yet available in the vast majority of states, so today’s report does not fully capture the number of people who selected plans leading up to the deadline for Jan. 1, 2015 coverage. In particular, the automatic reenrollment process for the 37 states using the HealthCare.gov platform began on December 16 and was completed for the vast majority of consumers on December 18.
HHS also released a Weekly Enrollment Snapshot that captures more recent enrollment activity in the 37 states using the HealthCare.gov platform. The Weekly Snapshot shows that from November 15 to December 26, nearly 6.5 million consumers selected a plan or were automatically reenrolled.
“We’re pleased that nationwide, millions of people signed up for Marketplace coverage starting January 1. The vast majority were able to lower their costs even further by getting tax credits, making a difference in the bottom lines of so many families,” HHS Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell said. “Interest in the Marketplace has been strong during the first month of open enrollment. We still have a ways to go and a lot of work to do before February 15, but this is an encouraging start.”
Detailed findings for HealthCare.gov states through December 15:
More than 3.4 million people selected a plan through December 15 in the 37 states that are using the HealthCare.gov platform for 2015, including Oregon and Nevada. Of those:
87 percent selected a plan with financial assistance compared to 80 percent in the early months of the first open enrollment period.
33 percent were under 35 years of age compared to 29 percent in the early months of the first open enrollment period.
Nearly 1 million consumers selected a plan in the three days leading up to December 15. That is almost one third (28 percent) of total plan selections from November 15 through December 15.
Of the 3.4 million plan selections, 48 percent (1.6 million) reenrolled in a Marketplace plan and 52 percent (1.8 million) signed up for the first time.
The most recent Weekly Enrollment Snapshot with data available through December 26 can be found here.
Detailed findings for the 14 states using state based Marketplace enrollment platforms:
More than 600,000 consumers selected plans in the 14 states that are operating their own Marketplace platform for 2015. That includes:
161,752 Marketplace plan selections in two states reporting only data for new consumers (California and New York);
153,011 Marketplace plan selections in seven states reporting data on new consumers and consumers actively reenrolling in Marketplace coverage (Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island); and
318,075 Marketplace plan selections in five states reporting data on new enrollees, consumers actively reenrolling in Marketplace coverage, and automatic reenrollees (Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Vermont, and Washington).
The information contained in this report provides the most systematic summary of enrollment-related activity in the Marketplaces to date. Data for the various metrics are counted using comparable definitions for data elements across states and Marketplace types. But because many states extended their plan selection deadlines for January 1 coverage, the report does not include the full count of consumers who will have selected coverage that begins Jan. 1, 2015.
Open Enrollment in the Marketplace runs from Nov. 15, 2014, through Feb. 15, 2015. Consumers should visit HealthCare.gov to review and compare health plan options. Consumers shopping for health insurance coverage should sign up by Jan. 15, 2015, in order to have coverage effective on Feb. 1, 2015. If consumers who were automatically reenrolled decide in the coming weeks that a better plan exists for their families, they can make that change at any time before the end of open enrollment on February 15.
AFGHANISTAN: COMBAT MISSION ENDS BUT, ASSISTANCE CONTINUES
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
℠2014 - U.S. forces will continue to assist counterparts in Afghanistan.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
U.S. OFFICIAL'S EXPLANATION OF U.S VOTE AT UN ON ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN RESOLUTION .
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
December 30, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thank you Mr. President,
In recent years, no government has invested more in the effort to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace than the United States. Peace – however difficult it may be to forge – is too important to give up on. As we were reminded this summer in Gaza, and as we’ve been reminded too painfully recently in Jerusalem and the West Bank, the human consequences of ensuing cycles of violence are too grave. The United States every day searches for new ways to take constructive steps to support the parties in making progress toward achieving a negotiated settlement.
The Security Council resolution put before us today is not one of those constructive steps; it would undermine efforts to get back to an atmosphere that makes it possible to achieve two states for two people.
Regrettably, instead of giving voice to the aspirations of both Palestinians and Israelis, this text addresses the concerns of only one side. It is deeply imbalanced and contains many elements that are not conducive to negotiations between the parties, including unconstructive deadlines that take no account of Israel’s legitimate security concerns. In addition, this resolution was put to a vote without a discussion or due consideration among Council members, which is highly unusual, especially considering the gravity of the matter at hand. We must proceed responsibly, not take actions that would risk a downward spiral.
We voted against this resolution not because we are comfortable with the status quo. We voted against it because we know what everyone here knows, as well – peace will come from hard choices and compromises that must be made at the negotiating table. Today’s staged confrontation in the UN Security Council will not bring the parties closer to achieving a two-state solution.
We voted against this resolution not because we are indifferent to the daily hardships or the security threats endured by Palestinians and Israelis, but because we know that those hardships will not cease and those threats will not subside until the parties reach a comprehensive settlement achieved through negotiations. This resolution sets the stage for more division – not for compromise. It could well serve to provoke the very confrontation it purports to address.
For decades, the United States has worked to try to help achieve a comprehensive end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we remain committed to achieving the peace that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve: two states for two peoples, with a sovereign, viable, and independent Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel.
The United States does not just acknowledge the tremendous frustrations and disappointments on both sides over the years in pursuit of peace; we share them. And we understand the immense challenges the parties need to overcome to make peace a reality. Yet at the same time, we firmly believe the status quo between Israelis and Palestinians is unsustainable.
The United States recognizes the role that this Council has played before in advancing a sustainable end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including through resolutions 242, 338, and 1515, which calls for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with both states “living side-by-side within secure and recognized borders.” In a May 2011 speech, President Obama elaborated further that “the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine…based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” He made clear that the “Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”
The United States will continue reaching out to the parties in an effort to find a way forward, and we are ready to engage and support them when they are ready to return to the table. And we will continue to oppose actions by both sides that we view as detrimental to the cause of peace, whether those actions come in the form of settlement activity or imbalanced draft resolutions in this Council. The parties have a responsibility to negotiate and to own the hard choices that will be needed if they are to bring real and long-overdue change to their region to benefit their people.
Today’s vote should not be interpreted as a victory for an unsustainable status quo. Instead, it should serve as a wake-up call to catalyze all interested parties to take constructive, responsible steps to achieve a two-state solution, which remains the only way to bring an end to the ongoing cycle of violence and suffering. We hope that those who share our vision for peace between two states – Israel and Palestine, both secure, democratic, and prosperous – will join us in redoubling efforts to find a path forward that can rally international consensus, advance future negotiations, and provide a horizon of hope for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Thank you.
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
December 30, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thank you Mr. President,
In recent years, no government has invested more in the effort to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace than the United States. Peace – however difficult it may be to forge – is too important to give up on. As we were reminded this summer in Gaza, and as we’ve been reminded too painfully recently in Jerusalem and the West Bank, the human consequences of ensuing cycles of violence are too grave. The United States every day searches for new ways to take constructive steps to support the parties in making progress toward achieving a negotiated settlement.
The Security Council resolution put before us today is not one of those constructive steps; it would undermine efforts to get back to an atmosphere that makes it possible to achieve two states for two people.
Regrettably, instead of giving voice to the aspirations of both Palestinians and Israelis, this text addresses the concerns of only one side. It is deeply imbalanced and contains many elements that are not conducive to negotiations between the parties, including unconstructive deadlines that take no account of Israel’s legitimate security concerns. In addition, this resolution was put to a vote without a discussion or due consideration among Council members, which is highly unusual, especially considering the gravity of the matter at hand. We must proceed responsibly, not take actions that would risk a downward spiral.
We voted against this resolution not because we are comfortable with the status quo. We voted against it because we know what everyone here knows, as well – peace will come from hard choices and compromises that must be made at the negotiating table. Today’s staged confrontation in the UN Security Council will not bring the parties closer to achieving a two-state solution.
We voted against this resolution not because we are indifferent to the daily hardships or the security threats endured by Palestinians and Israelis, but because we know that those hardships will not cease and those threats will not subside until the parties reach a comprehensive settlement achieved through negotiations. This resolution sets the stage for more division – not for compromise. It could well serve to provoke the very confrontation it purports to address.
For decades, the United States has worked to try to help achieve a comprehensive end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we remain committed to achieving the peace that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve: two states for two peoples, with a sovereign, viable, and independent Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel.
The United States does not just acknowledge the tremendous frustrations and disappointments on both sides over the years in pursuit of peace; we share them. And we understand the immense challenges the parties need to overcome to make peace a reality. Yet at the same time, we firmly believe the status quo between Israelis and Palestinians is unsustainable.
The United States recognizes the role that this Council has played before in advancing a sustainable end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including through resolutions 242, 338, and 1515, which calls for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with both states “living side-by-side within secure and recognized borders.” In a May 2011 speech, President Obama elaborated further that “the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine…based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” He made clear that the “Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”
The United States will continue reaching out to the parties in an effort to find a way forward, and we are ready to engage and support them when they are ready to return to the table. And we will continue to oppose actions by both sides that we view as detrimental to the cause of peace, whether those actions come in the form of settlement activity or imbalanced draft resolutions in this Council. The parties have a responsibility to negotiate and to own the hard choices that will be needed if they are to bring real and long-overdue change to their region to benefit their people.
Today’s vote should not be interpreted as a victory for an unsustainable status quo. Instead, it should serve as a wake-up call to catalyze all interested parties to take constructive, responsible steps to achieve a two-state solution, which remains the only way to bring an end to the ongoing cycle of violence and suffering. We hope that those who share our vision for peace between two states – Israel and Palestine, both secure, democratic, and prosperous – will join us in redoubling efforts to find a path forward that can rally international consensus, advance future negotiations, and provide a horizon of hope for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Thank you.
STATE DEPARTMENT ON SERGEI MAGNITSKY RULE OF LAW ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing on Implementation of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act
Special Briefing
Senior State Department Official
Via Teleconference
December 29, 2014
MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Laurie, and welcome to everyone who has joined us for this background call today. As noted, this call will be on background, so no names or titles. It’s attributable to a senior State Department official, but just for everyone’s understanding, the person who will do the background call today is [Senior State Department Official]. But from here on out [Senior State Department Official] will be Senior State Department Official, and we will get started now, and I’ll turn the floor over to our briefer. Go ahead, please.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thank you, everyone, for joining the call. Today, Secretary Kerry transmitted to the Congress the third of our Magnitsky reports, or reports to Congress pursuant to the Magnitsky Act. This report included a list of four Russian officials newly added to the list. They will be – in fact, are as of now – subject to both a visa restriction, a ban on entry into the United States; and an asset freeze, in accordance with the Magnitsky Act. I believe you have the four names. Two are Russian officials who were implicated in the death and subsequent cover-up of the – of Sergei Magnitsky himself. Two are Chechen officials who were implicated in the kidnapping, torture, and later framing of a noted Chechen activist – a Mr. Kutayev -- earlier this year.
These four are the latest in – as I said earlier, are the latest in the – our listings pursuant to the Magnitsky Act. We have said throughout this process that we will continue to investigate new cases, both having to do with the death of Sergei Magnitsky himself, but also having to do with non-Magnitsky-related examples of gross violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings, torture, or other actions.
In each Magnitsky list so far, we have combined those designations associated with Magnitsky himself with those associated with other gross human rights violations. The same is true in this case. The numbers of Magnitsky-related designations have dropped, you have noticed. This is partly – in fact, it is largely due to the fact that the numbers of individuals whom we can designate, whom we can tie through fact-based analysis to Magnitsky’s death and the subsequent cover-up of that death, will drop. We’re not done with that process, but it is going to become more of a challenge to designate Magnitsky-related individuals. And just as a matter of reality, our efforts will begin to turn to the gross violations of human rights, as in the case of the Chechen activist, Mr. Kutayev.
One other thing worth mentioning about the two Russian officials, Viktor Grin, deputy prosecutor general, and Andrei Strizhov, investigator under the investigative committee, who were, of course, designated because of their involvement in the death and cover-up of Magnitsky’s killing. In their particular case, it was related to the cover-up. They are also, and in addition to this, associated with arrests, prosecutions, and other problematic actions with respect to the Bolotnaya case. You remember the demonstrations in Bolotnaya Square in the beginning of 2012, after which – during which and after which people were rounded up and prosecuted. They were not designated under the Magnitsky Act because of this involvement, but it is a fact that they were involved in Bolotnaya cases, and one of them – Deputy Prosecutor General Grin – was also involved in the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev case.
And by the way, with respect to Mr. Grin’s involvement in the Magnitsky cover-up, specifically Grin was responsible for opening two posthumous cases against Magnitsky. They put Magnitsky on trial after – well after he was dead, which astonished us. We didn’t know it was possible. And in fact, it really isn’t possible under Russian law, as I understand it, except in response to the request of the family. And Magnitsky’s family has gone on record saying they did not request their family member to be put on trial again after he was dead. So Viktor Grin’s involvement of this strange – in fact bizarre – action was one that is particularly satisfying to those of us who want to see the Magnitsky Act implemented fairly.
I will finish up here and – at this point, and happily take your questions.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating you’ve been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the queue by pressing the # key. And if you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. Once again, if you have a question, press * then 1 at this time. One moment for our first question.
MODERATOR: All right, Laurie. Please go ahead with the first question.
OPERATOR: It is from the line of Leandra Bernstein with RIA Novosti. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Hi. Just a question on the effectiveness of the Magnitsky sanctions. There have been some members of Congress who have – who’ve claimed that the Administration hasn’t been faithfully implementing the Magnitsky Act. So just your response on how effective you believe the implementation is, and then you made reference to further expanding the conditions to deal with the gross violations of human rights, so how effective you believe that will be.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I am aware of various views expressed by members of Congress, but for our part, the Executive Branch is happy to work with the Congress to see to it that the Magnitsky Act is implemented – not just once, not but – just twice, but over time. By the way, I should clarify what I said. This is the third list, the third time we have sent a list up to the Congress, but it is only technically the second report. There’s a technical difference, but I want to be clear.
We intend to continue to administer the Magnitsky Act. Specifically, we intend to pursue additional designations. I can’t make promises in advance as to the timing or the extent, but I can tell you that we are committed to continuing this process.
As to effectiveness, in any – in pursuit of any sustained human rights policy, results come unevenly and there tend to be tipping points. That is, our listing of individuals may have the indirect effect of putting Russian officials on notice that if they are involved in gross violations of human rights, trumped-up cases, false accusations, grotesque examples of misappropriate – mishandling of justice, such as putting a dead man on trial, under this law they may be held personally liable.
Now, this is not an ideal situation. In democracies, in the rule of law, governments and a free media inside the country are responsible for correcting mistakes and issuing reports – sometimes embarrassing to the host government when we make mistakes. But absent that process, the Magnitsky Act can serve as an admittedly imperfect tool to advance human rights and ultimately the cause of justice, which was, I believe, its intent. And it is that tool which we will attempt to advance, working with the Congress, with human rights communities, inside and outside Russia, and with the knowledge that now as in the Soviet period, a sustained, determined human rights policy can, in fact, be effective.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Laurie, would you make one more call for questions and explain how to lodge questions?
OPERATOR: Yes. If you do have questions, please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone.
MODERATOR: Okay, very good. We’ll take the next question then.
OPERATOR: And that comes from Carol Morello with The Washington Post. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you for doing this. So what is the total number of people, including those whose names you have not made public, who are on the list? And when you said that number is clearly going to diminish, I mean, realistically speaking, how many more people could we expect for you to put on the list in the future? Are we talking less than a dozen more to come, or can you just give us a ballpark figure on what might still be coming down the road? Thank you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, the first part of your question is easy. There have been 34 individual designations so far under the Magnitsky Act in the three tranches of names we have provided to Congress. I won’t speak at all to the number of classified designations, if indeed there – I won’t even confirm that there are any, so that’s outside of this number.
I can’t give you a number, obviously, of how many designations there may be in the future, because increasingly our designations will be a reaction to events as they occur inside Russia, now and in – starting now and in the future – well, also in the recent past. But that depends – what we do depends on what happens in Russia. We’re not working according to a quota; we are working in response to actual events and our ability to link individuals with those actual events. We work very closely – the State Department works very closely with the Treasury Department, with the Justice Department to obtain information which can support a designation by linking an individual to actual conduct. And the factual basis has to be strong. I can’t, as I said, give you a number, but I can tell you that we will be working on implementing the Magnitsky Act in the future.
MODERATOR: All right, thank you. Operator, do we have any more calls in the queue?
OPERATOR: We have no additional questions.
MODERATOR: Okay. Well, then let me wrap up by thanking our briefer and by thanking all of you who participated in the call. Oh, let’s see, Senior Administration Official, would you be willing to entertain one final question?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes, I would.
MODERATOR: Okay, very good. Then, operator, why don’t you open the line for that one?
OPERATOR: And that will be from Paul Richter with The Los Angeles Times. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. I’d like to know what kind of response you expect from the Russians, if any, based on the way they’ve reacted in the past cases.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I – well, I expect that they will complain and they may threaten retaliation. They may actually retaliate. We’re aware – we are aware of retaliation they have taken in – throughout this year in response to other sanctions, particularly because of their aggression against Ukraine. So that wouldn’t surprise us, but it will not deter us from doing the right thing. And it is also true that the day will come in the future when we have better relations with Russia. I firmly believe that. It would be in the interests of both countries. But given Russian actions, that day is not today.
MODERATOR: All right. Well, that’s our last question, and I want to thank our briefer and thank all of the participants in the call, and remind once again that this call has been on background, so no names or titles, and attributable to a senior State Department official. Thanks very much, everyone, and until next time.
Background Briefing on Implementation of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act
Special Briefing
Senior State Department Official
Via Teleconference
December 29, 2014
MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Laurie, and welcome to everyone who has joined us for this background call today. As noted, this call will be on background, so no names or titles. It’s attributable to a senior State Department official, but just for everyone’s understanding, the person who will do the background call today is [Senior State Department Official]. But from here on out [Senior State Department Official] will be Senior State Department Official, and we will get started now, and I’ll turn the floor over to our briefer. Go ahead, please.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thank you, everyone, for joining the call. Today, Secretary Kerry transmitted to the Congress the third of our Magnitsky reports, or reports to Congress pursuant to the Magnitsky Act. This report included a list of four Russian officials newly added to the list. They will be – in fact, are as of now – subject to both a visa restriction, a ban on entry into the United States; and an asset freeze, in accordance with the Magnitsky Act. I believe you have the four names. Two are Russian officials who were implicated in the death and subsequent cover-up of the – of Sergei Magnitsky himself. Two are Chechen officials who were implicated in the kidnapping, torture, and later framing of a noted Chechen activist – a Mr. Kutayev -- earlier this year.
These four are the latest in – as I said earlier, are the latest in the – our listings pursuant to the Magnitsky Act. We have said throughout this process that we will continue to investigate new cases, both having to do with the death of Sergei Magnitsky himself, but also having to do with non-Magnitsky-related examples of gross violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings, torture, or other actions.
In each Magnitsky list so far, we have combined those designations associated with Magnitsky himself with those associated with other gross human rights violations. The same is true in this case. The numbers of Magnitsky-related designations have dropped, you have noticed. This is partly – in fact, it is largely due to the fact that the numbers of individuals whom we can designate, whom we can tie through fact-based analysis to Magnitsky’s death and the subsequent cover-up of that death, will drop. We’re not done with that process, but it is going to become more of a challenge to designate Magnitsky-related individuals. And just as a matter of reality, our efforts will begin to turn to the gross violations of human rights, as in the case of the Chechen activist, Mr. Kutayev.
One other thing worth mentioning about the two Russian officials, Viktor Grin, deputy prosecutor general, and Andrei Strizhov, investigator under the investigative committee, who were, of course, designated because of their involvement in the death and cover-up of Magnitsky’s killing. In their particular case, it was related to the cover-up. They are also, and in addition to this, associated with arrests, prosecutions, and other problematic actions with respect to the Bolotnaya case. You remember the demonstrations in Bolotnaya Square in the beginning of 2012, after which – during which and after which people were rounded up and prosecuted. They were not designated under the Magnitsky Act because of this involvement, but it is a fact that they were involved in Bolotnaya cases, and one of them – Deputy Prosecutor General Grin – was also involved in the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev case.
And by the way, with respect to Mr. Grin’s involvement in the Magnitsky cover-up, specifically Grin was responsible for opening two posthumous cases against Magnitsky. They put Magnitsky on trial after – well after he was dead, which astonished us. We didn’t know it was possible. And in fact, it really isn’t possible under Russian law, as I understand it, except in response to the request of the family. And Magnitsky’s family has gone on record saying they did not request their family member to be put on trial again after he was dead. So Viktor Grin’s involvement of this strange – in fact bizarre – action was one that is particularly satisfying to those of us who want to see the Magnitsky Act implemented fairly.
I will finish up here and – at this point, and happily take your questions.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating you’ve been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the queue by pressing the # key. And if you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. Once again, if you have a question, press * then 1 at this time. One moment for our first question.
MODERATOR: All right, Laurie. Please go ahead with the first question.
OPERATOR: It is from the line of Leandra Bernstein with RIA Novosti. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Hi. Just a question on the effectiveness of the Magnitsky sanctions. There have been some members of Congress who have – who’ve claimed that the Administration hasn’t been faithfully implementing the Magnitsky Act. So just your response on how effective you believe the implementation is, and then you made reference to further expanding the conditions to deal with the gross violations of human rights, so how effective you believe that will be.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I am aware of various views expressed by members of Congress, but for our part, the Executive Branch is happy to work with the Congress to see to it that the Magnitsky Act is implemented – not just once, not but – just twice, but over time. By the way, I should clarify what I said. This is the third list, the third time we have sent a list up to the Congress, but it is only technically the second report. There’s a technical difference, but I want to be clear.
We intend to continue to administer the Magnitsky Act. Specifically, we intend to pursue additional designations. I can’t make promises in advance as to the timing or the extent, but I can tell you that we are committed to continuing this process.
As to effectiveness, in any – in pursuit of any sustained human rights policy, results come unevenly and there tend to be tipping points. That is, our listing of individuals may have the indirect effect of putting Russian officials on notice that if they are involved in gross violations of human rights, trumped-up cases, false accusations, grotesque examples of misappropriate – mishandling of justice, such as putting a dead man on trial, under this law they may be held personally liable.
Now, this is not an ideal situation. In democracies, in the rule of law, governments and a free media inside the country are responsible for correcting mistakes and issuing reports – sometimes embarrassing to the host government when we make mistakes. But absent that process, the Magnitsky Act can serve as an admittedly imperfect tool to advance human rights and ultimately the cause of justice, which was, I believe, its intent. And it is that tool which we will attempt to advance, working with the Congress, with human rights communities, inside and outside Russia, and with the knowledge that now as in the Soviet period, a sustained, determined human rights policy can, in fact, be effective.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Laurie, would you make one more call for questions and explain how to lodge questions?
OPERATOR: Yes. If you do have questions, please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone.
MODERATOR: Okay, very good. We’ll take the next question then.
OPERATOR: And that comes from Carol Morello with The Washington Post. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you for doing this. So what is the total number of people, including those whose names you have not made public, who are on the list? And when you said that number is clearly going to diminish, I mean, realistically speaking, how many more people could we expect for you to put on the list in the future? Are we talking less than a dozen more to come, or can you just give us a ballpark figure on what might still be coming down the road? Thank you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, the first part of your question is easy. There have been 34 individual designations so far under the Magnitsky Act in the three tranches of names we have provided to Congress. I won’t speak at all to the number of classified designations, if indeed there – I won’t even confirm that there are any, so that’s outside of this number.
I can’t give you a number, obviously, of how many designations there may be in the future, because increasingly our designations will be a reaction to events as they occur inside Russia, now and in – starting now and in the future – well, also in the recent past. But that depends – what we do depends on what happens in Russia. We’re not working according to a quota; we are working in response to actual events and our ability to link individuals with those actual events. We work very closely – the State Department works very closely with the Treasury Department, with the Justice Department to obtain information which can support a designation by linking an individual to actual conduct. And the factual basis has to be strong. I can’t, as I said, give you a number, but I can tell you that we will be working on implementing the Magnitsky Act in the future.
MODERATOR: All right, thank you. Operator, do we have any more calls in the queue?
OPERATOR: We have no additional questions.
MODERATOR: Okay. Well, then let me wrap up by thanking our briefer and by thanking all of you who participated in the call. Oh, let’s see, Senior Administration Official, would you be willing to entertain one final question?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes, I would.
MODERATOR: Okay, very good. Then, operator, why don’t you open the line for that one?
OPERATOR: And that will be from Paul Richter with The Los Angeles Times. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. I’d like to know what kind of response you expect from the Russians, if any, based on the way they’ve reacted in the past cases.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I – well, I expect that they will complain and they may threaten retaliation. They may actually retaliate. We’re aware – we are aware of retaliation they have taken in – throughout this year in response to other sanctions, particularly because of their aggression against Ukraine. So that wouldn’t surprise us, but it will not deter us from doing the right thing. And it is also true that the day will come in the future when we have better relations with Russia. I firmly believe that. It would be in the interests of both countries. But given Russian actions, that day is not today.
MODERATOR: All right. Well, that’s our last question, and I want to thank our briefer and thank all of the participants in the call, and remind once again that this call has been on background, so no names or titles, and attributable to a senior State Department official. Thanks very much, everyone, and until next time.
U.S. CONTINUES AIRSTRIKES AGAINST ISIL
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, Dec. 29, 2014 – U.S. and partner-nation military forces continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq today, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent resolve officials reported.
Fighter, attack and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 12 airstrikes in Syria and six in Iraq, officials said.
Airstrikes in Syria
Here are the details of today’s strikes in Syria:
-- Near Kobani, 10 airstrikes destroyed 11 ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL buildings and an ISIL storage container and struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Day az Zawr, an airstrike struck several ISIL buildings.
-- Near Raqqah, an airstrike struck several ISIL buildings.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Here are the details of today’s strikes in Iraq:
-- Near Asad, two airstrikes destroyed two ISIL vehicles and struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Sinjar, two airstrikes destroyed an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Mosul, two airstrikes destroyed two ISIL buildings and struck a large ISIL unit.
Part of Operation Inherent Resolve
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community, officials said, noting that strike assessments are based on initial reports.
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, Dec. 29, 2014 – U.S. and partner-nation military forces continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq today, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent resolve officials reported.
Fighter, attack and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 12 airstrikes in Syria and six in Iraq, officials said.
Airstrikes in Syria
Here are the details of today’s strikes in Syria:
-- Near Kobani, 10 airstrikes destroyed 11 ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL buildings and an ISIL storage container and struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Day az Zawr, an airstrike struck several ISIL buildings.
-- Near Raqqah, an airstrike struck several ISIL buildings.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Here are the details of today’s strikes in Iraq:
-- Near Asad, two airstrikes destroyed two ISIL vehicles and struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Sinjar, two airstrikes destroyed an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Mosul, two airstrikes destroyed two ISIL buildings and struck a large ISIL unit.
Part of Operation Inherent Resolve
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community, officials said, noting that strike assessments are based on initial reports.
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT ON END OF COMBAT MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT
December 28, 2014
Statement by the President on the End of the Combat Mission in Afghanistan
Today's ceremony in Kabul marks a milestone for our country. For more than 13 years, ever since nearly 3,000 innocent lives were taken from us on 9/11, our nation has been at war in Afghanistan. Now, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.
On this day we give thanks to our troops and intelligence personnel who have been relentless against the terrorists responsible for 9/11--devastating the core al Qaeda leadership, delivering justice to Osama bin Laden, disrupting terrorist plots and saving countless American lives. We are safer, and our nation is more secure, because of their service. At the same time, our courageous military and diplomatic personnel in Afghanistan--along with our NATO allies and coalition partners--have helped the Afghan people reclaim their communities, take the lead for their own security, hold historic elections and complete the first democratic transfer of power in their country's history.
We honor the profound sacrifices that have made this progress possible. We salute every American--military and civilian, including our dedicated diplomats and development workers--who have served in Afghanistan, many on multiple tours, just as their families have sacrificed at home. We pledge to give our many wounded warriors, with wounds seen and unseen, the world-class care and treatment they have earned. Most of all, we remember the more than 2,200 American patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan, and we pledge to stand with their Gold Star families who need the everlasting love and support of a grateful nation.
Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and the Afghan people and their security forces continue to make tremendous sacrifices in defense of their country. At the invitation of the Afghan government, and to preserve the gains we have made together, the United States--along with our allies and partners--will maintain a limited military presence in Afghanistan to train, advise and assist Afghan forces and to conduct counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al Qaeda. Our personnel will continue to face risks, but this reflects the enduring commitment of the United States to the Afghan people and to a united, secure and sovereign Afghanistan that is never again used as a source of attacks against our nation.
These past 13 years have tested our nation and our military. But compared to the nearly 180,000 American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan when I took office, we now have fewer than 15,000 in those countries. Some 90 percent of our troops are home. Our military remains the finest in the world, and we will remain vigilant against terrorist attacks and in defense of the freedoms and values we hold dear. And with growing prosperity here at home, we enter a new year with new confidence, indebted to our fellow Americans in uniform who keep us safe and free.
December 28, 2014
Statement by the President on the End of the Combat Mission in Afghanistan
Today's ceremony in Kabul marks a milestone for our country. For more than 13 years, ever since nearly 3,000 innocent lives were taken from us on 9/11, our nation has been at war in Afghanistan. Now, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.
On this day we give thanks to our troops and intelligence personnel who have been relentless against the terrorists responsible for 9/11--devastating the core al Qaeda leadership, delivering justice to Osama bin Laden, disrupting terrorist plots and saving countless American lives. We are safer, and our nation is more secure, because of their service. At the same time, our courageous military and diplomatic personnel in Afghanistan--along with our NATO allies and coalition partners--have helped the Afghan people reclaim their communities, take the lead for their own security, hold historic elections and complete the first democratic transfer of power in their country's history.
We honor the profound sacrifices that have made this progress possible. We salute every American--military and civilian, including our dedicated diplomats and development workers--who have served in Afghanistan, many on multiple tours, just as their families have sacrificed at home. We pledge to give our many wounded warriors, with wounds seen and unseen, the world-class care and treatment they have earned. Most of all, we remember the more than 2,200 American patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan, and we pledge to stand with their Gold Star families who need the everlasting love and support of a grateful nation.
Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and the Afghan people and their security forces continue to make tremendous sacrifices in defense of their country. At the invitation of the Afghan government, and to preserve the gains we have made together, the United States--along with our allies and partners--will maintain a limited military presence in Afghanistan to train, advise and assist Afghan forces and to conduct counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al Qaeda. Our personnel will continue to face risks, but this reflects the enduring commitment of the United States to the Afghan people and to a united, secure and sovereign Afghanistan that is never again used as a source of attacks against our nation.
These past 13 years have tested our nation and our military. But compared to the nearly 180,000 American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan when I took office, we now have fewer than 15,000 in those countries. Some 90 percent of our troops are home. Our military remains the finest in the world, and we will remain vigilant against terrorist attacks and in defense of the freedoms and values we hold dear. And with growing prosperity here at home, we enter a new year with new confidence, indebted to our fellow Americans in uniform who keep us safe and free.
DOL TOUTS TRAINING PROGRAM
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DOL Working for You
Training Program Illuminates New Career Path
Justin Hitchcock. Click for a larger photo.
Justin Hitchcock was working on a spray rig for an agricultural company while attending Mississippi Delta Community College. When the company closed, he followed his grandfather's advice: "you need to find a job, doing something that everybody needs... and you'll never have to worry about being laid off again." Hitchcock enrolled in the college's electrical lineman training program. Funded by the Employment and Training Administration's Workforce Investment Act as part of the Delta Workforce Investment Program, the 16-week program brought his grandfather's advice to life. Upon graduation, Justin joined Delta Electric Power Association as an apprentice lineman. His supervisor allowed him to go out on every call he could to gain experience and earn his journeyman rating at an accelerated rate. Today, Justin's entire crew is comprised of graduates of the community college program. "Nobody worries about who keeps their lights on, they just want them on. I love being one of the people keeping the lights on," he said.
DOL Working for You
Training Program Illuminates New Career Path
Justin Hitchcock. Click for a larger photo.
Justin Hitchcock was working on a spray rig for an agricultural company while attending Mississippi Delta Community College. When the company closed, he followed his grandfather's advice: "you need to find a job, doing something that everybody needs... and you'll never have to worry about being laid off again." Hitchcock enrolled in the college's electrical lineman training program. Funded by the Employment and Training Administration's Workforce Investment Act as part of the Delta Workforce Investment Program, the 16-week program brought his grandfather's advice to life. Upon graduation, Justin joined Delta Electric Power Association as an apprentice lineman. His supervisor allowed him to go out on every call he could to gain experience and earn his journeyman rating at an accelerated rate. Today, Justin's entire crew is comprised of graduates of the community college program. "Nobody worries about who keeps their lights on, they just want them on. I love being one of the people keeping the lights on," he said.
Monday, December 29, 2014
DOL GRANTS WORLD VISION $10 MILLION TO FIGHT EXPLOITED CHILD LABORERS IN ETHIOPIA
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
World Vision receives $10M US Labor Department grant to combat
exploitative child labor in Ethiopia
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of International Labor Affairs today announced the award of a $10 million cooperative agreement with World Vision to implement a project to address exploitative labor among youth in Ethiopia.
"We know when youth are provided skills training and career services that align with needs in the jobs market, they are less likely to be drawn into exploitative labor," said Deputy Undersecretary of Labor for International Affairs Carol Pier. "Our goal is to help vulnerable youth in Ethiopia develop the skills they need to make a successful transition into decent jobs."
The project will promote education and vocational training opportunities and seek to enhance livelihoods and access to social protection programs for youth and their households. Focusing specifically on the needs of girls, the project aims to address exploitative child labor by providing youth ages 14 to 17, with marketable skills and support to secure decent work. The project will also support President Obama's Young African Leaders Initiative.
Since 1993, ILAB has produced reports to raise awareness globally about child labor and forced labor. ILAB has also provided funding for more than 280 projects in more than 94 countries to combat the worst forms of child labor by providing assistance to vulnerable children and their families.
Based in Washington State, World Vision is a non-profit, humanitarian organization conducting relief, development, and advocacy activities in its work with children, families, and their communities in nearly 100 countries to help them reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice. World Vision serves all people regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender.
World Vision receives $10M US Labor Department grant to combat
exploitative child labor in Ethiopia
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of International Labor Affairs today announced the award of a $10 million cooperative agreement with World Vision to implement a project to address exploitative labor among youth in Ethiopia.
"We know when youth are provided skills training and career services that align with needs in the jobs market, they are less likely to be drawn into exploitative labor," said Deputy Undersecretary of Labor for International Affairs Carol Pier. "Our goal is to help vulnerable youth in Ethiopia develop the skills they need to make a successful transition into decent jobs."
The project will promote education and vocational training opportunities and seek to enhance livelihoods and access to social protection programs for youth and their households. Focusing specifically on the needs of girls, the project aims to address exploitative child labor by providing youth ages 14 to 17, with marketable skills and support to secure decent work. The project will also support President Obama's Young African Leaders Initiative.
Since 1993, ILAB has produced reports to raise awareness globally about child labor and forced labor. ILAB has also provided funding for more than 280 projects in more than 94 countries to combat the worst forms of child labor by providing assistance to vulnerable children and their families.
Based in Washington State, World Vision is a non-profit, humanitarian organization conducting relief, development, and advocacy activities in its work with children, families, and their communities in nearly 100 countries to help them reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice. World Vision serves all people regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender.
DOJ FILES PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT AGAINST CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Justice Department Files Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Against the Chicago Board of Education
The Justice Department today announced the filing of a lawsuit against the Chicago Board of Education, alleging that the board discriminated against pregnant teachers at Scammon Elementary School by subjecting them to adverse personnel actions, including termination in some instances, after they announced their pregnancies. According to the complaint, these adverse personnel actions were in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is a federal statute that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion. The statute explicitly prohibits employers from discriminating against female employees due to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.
The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that, starting in 2009, the principal at Scammon subjected female teachers to lower performance evaluations, discipline, threatened termination and/or termination because of their pregnancies. The complaint further alleges that the board approved the firing of six recently pregnant teachers employed at Scammon and forced two other recently pregnant teachers to leave Scammon. The department’s complaint seeks a court order that would require the board to develop and implement policies that would prevent its employees from being subjected to discrimination due to their pregnancies. The relief sought also includes monetary damages as compensation for those teachers who were harmed by the alleged discrimination.
Two teachers who had been pregnant while working at Scammon filed charges of sex discrimination with the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC investigated the charges and determined that there was reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred against the two charging parties as well as against other pregnant teachers. The EEOC was unsuccessful in its attempts to conciliate the matter before referring it to the Department of Justice.
“No woman should have to make a choice between her job and having a family,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta for the Civil Rights Division. “Federal law requires employers to maintain a workplace free of discrimination on the basis of sex.”
“Despite much progress, we continue to see the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices in the workplace,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang.
“The EEOC will continue to vigorously enforce Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination against pregnant employees,” said John P. Rowe, former District Director of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office. Rowe led the EEOC’s administrative investigation of the charges filed by the two teachers.
This lawsuit is brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a joint effort to enhance collaboration between the EEOC and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division for vigorous enforcement of Title VII.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Justice Department Files Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Against the Chicago Board of Education
The Justice Department today announced the filing of a lawsuit against the Chicago Board of Education, alleging that the board discriminated against pregnant teachers at Scammon Elementary School by subjecting them to adverse personnel actions, including termination in some instances, after they announced their pregnancies. According to the complaint, these adverse personnel actions were in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is a federal statute that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion. The statute explicitly prohibits employers from discriminating against female employees due to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.
The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that, starting in 2009, the principal at Scammon subjected female teachers to lower performance evaluations, discipline, threatened termination and/or termination because of their pregnancies. The complaint further alleges that the board approved the firing of six recently pregnant teachers employed at Scammon and forced two other recently pregnant teachers to leave Scammon. The department’s complaint seeks a court order that would require the board to develop and implement policies that would prevent its employees from being subjected to discrimination due to their pregnancies. The relief sought also includes monetary damages as compensation for those teachers who were harmed by the alleged discrimination.
Two teachers who had been pregnant while working at Scammon filed charges of sex discrimination with the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC investigated the charges and determined that there was reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred against the two charging parties as well as against other pregnant teachers. The EEOC was unsuccessful in its attempts to conciliate the matter before referring it to the Department of Justice.
“No woman should have to make a choice between her job and having a family,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta for the Civil Rights Division. “Federal law requires employers to maintain a workplace free of discrimination on the basis of sex.”
“Despite much progress, we continue to see the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices in the workplace,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang.
“The EEOC will continue to vigorously enforce Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination against pregnant employees,” said John P. Rowe, former District Director of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office. Rowe led the EEOC’s administrative investigation of the charges filed by the two teachers.
This lawsuit is brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a joint effort to enhance collaboration between the EEOC and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division for vigorous enforcement of Title VII.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)