Sunday, September 25, 2016

A Breakdown of Kent Security's Motion

We've been covering Kent Security's recent Labor Board case and the company's support of class-action waivers on this blog, and have pointed out that, though there is legal precedent in support of them, increasingly they are being viewed with skepticism by the public and media, and the federal government is stepping in, despite court cases and even Supreme Court decisions in favor of them. Personally, I happen to think they are used to hide or continue misconduct, but what I think is neither here nor there.

What Kent Security is facing right now is an agency that, true to its mandate, is resisting bad court decisions to defend the rights of workers. While some might argue that the Labor Board is stepping out of its proper bounds, I strongly disagree, as the Founding Fathers knew that any of the three branches could turn rogue, hence the checks and balances within our government. This is why I welcome President Obama's executive order that discourages these types of provisions. Also, any of the three branches in theory can make mistakes and change their decisions on issues. The bottom line is that nothing is set in stone for eternity when it comes to law, except the inalienable rights of the citizenry.

What I would like to do is bring these issues into proper context for the employees and future employees of Kent Security. As I pointed out, Kent Security's upper-executive staff, as shown on the company's website (which I have taken a screenshot of and sent to the Labor Board), is all-White (and we will be covering this some more in future posts) in a city that is extremely diverse racially and ethnically, and in an industry that also is very diverse. Given this fact, it should be no surprise that Kent Security is fighting, behind the scenes -- though I have put it out public -- to keep its low-wage minority employees from filing a class-action lawsuit against the company. Yes, in theory the EEOC could file a class-action lawsuit against the company, despite the waiver, though this probability is low (however, Kent Security may be at greater risk now that this information is being made public).

Amusingly, despite the lack of racial minorities at the highest level of the company, as shown on the company's own website, Kent Security has basically hired a minority -- going by the name -- to represent them in a labor charge to dismiss the complaint regarding their class-action waiver. Here is the evidence:

Kent Security supports class-action waiver.

Presumably this attorney for Bluerock Legal thinks he's witty, given that he has a law degree, after all. He likely makes well above the average person in Miami. He argues, using semantics and specious reasoning, that there is no "substantive right" to a class or collective action. All of this sounds good on paper, and no doubt there would be thunderous applause from other attorneys who make a similar income to him, but at the end of the day this lawyer is simply doing the bidding of his corporate paymasters, as is the case with his law partner, and in so doing he's actively repressing the basic rights of minority employees who have absolutely no say in these affairs, contrary to the theory, arguments, pretensions, etc. This is a company headquartered in North Miami, surrounded by a very large Haitian community, and I see not a single Haitian on the company's executive page -- not even a Latino, but that's another topic.

Similarly, Kent Security hired a female attorney in the case against Ms. Greenfield, though that didn't end too well -- the company ended up getting sued by this attorney, and was hit with a court sanction. I wouldn't be surprised if the company hires another female for its new pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. We'll see.

No comments:

Post a Comment