East African Refugees Sue Gov't Contractors over Discrimination

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Seven East African refugees are the lead plaintiffs in a proposed class action against Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC and Workforce Resources, LLC.

The lawsuit notes the defendants—outfits who contract with the U.S. Department of Defense to train Marines in African culture and other “cultures of interest to the military”—employ individuals like the plaintiffs as role players, playing parts such as shopkeepers, village elders and insurgents, for example, to work in simulated settings aimed to teach marines “how to operate safely and effectively” during counter-insurgency missions. The plaintiffs, who the case says are Somali Bantu immigrants driven from their homeland who are now citizens or permanent residents of the U.S., say the nature of their employment is “temporary, part-time, and sporadic,” but has gone on since at least 2010.

Filed on behalf of the companies’ current and former employees, the 33-page lawsuit claims the defendants “consistently and pervasively” discriminate against East African role players more so than role players of other nationalities. Further, the plaintiffs allege they’ve complained about disparate treatment and discriminatory harassment to the defendants for years, only to be met with “accelerated” mistreatment and threats of termination.

Even after filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board, the plaintiffs allege the defendants’ adverse actions and discrimination continued.

At its core, the case argues proposed class members were denied the “terms and conditions” that were favorable to non-East African employees. While members of the “East African Class” were allegedly subjected to daily “insults, ridicule, scorn, mockery and other disparagements” toward their race and skin color, members of the “Female Class” claim they experienced a policy of gender-based harassment. Specifically, members of this proposed class were allegedly not allowed to wear traditional clothing worn by women from their cultures and were subjected to “stereotypically female” cleaning and housekeeping jobs outside of their job descriptions.

The “Muslim Class” proposed to be covered by the litigation alleges the defendants unlawfully failed to provide religious accommodations to Muslim East African employees and discriminated against the individuals based on their religion “by means of subjective and arbitrary decision-making.”