Looks like B&H hasn't been too lucky there.
http://www.law360.com/articles/37768/b-h-photo-pays-4-3m-to-settle-discrimination-suit
In 2007 they paid $4.3 Million to settle a case brought by the EEOC that they discriminated against hispanic warehouse workers. in 2007 B&H denied the allegations but under the terms of the consent decree, B&H agreed to equalize the wages of its Hispanic employees compared to their non-Hispanic counterparts. B&H also agreed to adopt an anti-discrimination policy and take part in employer training.

The current lawsuit alleges that they hired 100 hispanic warehouse workers in Brooklyn between 2011 and 2013, and not a single black or Asian worker. And that hispanic workers get paid less than white workers and that few non-white workers are promoted.

It could be the Department of Labor had them under scrutiny because of the previous case, and is pursuing this case because they continued practices they said they would change in the 2007 agreement.

I know nothing of this case other than what has been posted here. But I do have questions. Why, if they are being abused so badly, don't the Hispanic employees simply go elsewhere to work? Could it be that no one else will hire them? How many left for jobs elsewhere?

Why no Asian employees? Maybe they qualify for higher paying jobs elsewhere. How may applied and were turned down?

How many Blacks applied and were turned down? Possibly they feel uncomfortable among so many Hispanics. Possibly they don't like that kind of work.

The point is, simply looking at total numbers employed without looking at all the possible explanations and ruling those out is a patently unfair process. I hope the system does a good job of looking at both sides and makes a just decision.

The indictment already assumes that B&H is guilty, and addresses none of the possible alternatives, of which I mention only a few. I don't need to mention guilty possibilities; the indictment already does that. That long history you speak of is, in many places, a fiction.

As the preamble to my last post points out, our legal philosophy has a long history of assuming innocence until proven guilty. I follow that, and hope the system does also. I hope the system looks at alternatives rather than focusing narrowly on appearance of guilt. Of course, it is the responsibility of the defense attorneys to assure there is as much balance as possible in the evidence presented to the court. OTOH, the power and financial resources of the Federal govt. is so great that the incentive to simply give up and pay something without admitting guilt is often overwhelming.

b&hheader

Things haven’t been going well for B&H Photo Video, one of the biggest names in the photography retail industry. Just months after being slammed with accusations of mistreatment and discrimination and seeing its workers protest and unionized, B&H is now being sued by the US government for discrimination.

The US Labor Department announced its lawsuit on Thursday, accusing B&H of violating federal requirements at its Brooklyn camera gear warehouse.

B&H “has systematically discriminated against Hispanic employees and female, black and Asian jobseekers at its Brooklyn Navy Yard warehouse,” the government says. B&H is a federal contractor, so it’s forbidden from discriminating in employment and is required to take affirmative action for employment equality.

“B&H fell far short of this responsibility and created deplorable working conditions for employees at its Brooklyn warehouse,” says Patricia A. Shiu, director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

B&H warehouse workers unionized in November 2015 after days of public protests.

The government has some specific and serious accusations against B&H as a result of a review conducted between January 2011 and January 2013.

One is that B&H required Hispanic warehouse workers to use separate restrooms from other employees — bathrooms that are unsanitary “and often inoperable,” the government says.

The lawsuit also accuses B&H of only hiring Hispanic men into its entry-level laborer positions (excluding both women and black and Asian workers), compensating Hispanic workers less than white ones, subjecting Hispanic workers to harassment, failing to keep proper records, failing to provide designated bathrooms and changing facilities for women, and more.

You can read the full text of the lawsuit here:

“OFCCP filed its complaint after determining that it was unable to secure a voluntary agreement from B&H to take corrective action,” the government says. It’s demanding that B&H provide relief for the affected workers, lest it cancel B&H’s government contracts (worth $46 million) and permanently ban it from future contracts.

The presumption of innocence is largely something that you have to pay lawyers to get. For most of the justice system at every level you are guilty until proven innocent. It's not just the federal government. It works that way for average people on everything from criminal charges to parking tickets. Even for people who can afford tens of thousands of dollars to fight criminal charges, the lawyer will often advise an innocent client to take a favorable deal, rather than risk long term prison sentences at the whims of a jury. In a jury, as in all court cases, the people who make the best arguments usually prevail. For prosecutors a deal is a win, so they will use the threat of much greater punishments if the deal isn't taken.

I think everone's reality is based on their experiences. If you have been falsely arrested and forced to pay thousands in legal fees to avoid imprisonment for something you didn't do, then for you the cops and prosecutors are corrupt. If you get robbed and your property is recovered by the cops, then for you the cops and prosecutors are heroes. If your employer doesn't pay you your vacation pay then a call to the Dept. of Labor will get him to send you a check, and the government is your friend. If your water is poisoned and the government agencies turned a blind eye, then the government is your enemy. The truth to every situation is different. Justice truly is blind. The guilty often go free and the innocent are often convicted. Guilt, innocence, right and wrong are often irrelevant to the outcome. That's why I never returned for my second year of law school after passing the first year in 1971. I didn't want to spend my whole life immersed in this Alice in Wonderland logic. It's probably also why I wound up loving my job with computers, which I finally got at the age of 41. You can't BS a computer. It only responds to the correct input.

Just about forever our legal system has operated under the idea that it is better to release X number of guilty persons than to falsely convict and punish one innocent one (Blackstone, 1760)(B. Franklin, 1770) That is why I spend more time concerned with those hounded unjustifiably than those justifiably hounded.

Just because you might disagree with someone, does not mean they are not aware of life or are untutored. I realize many things and have experienced much in my 76 years.

You may have noticed that I have not demeaned you in any way even though I might disagree with you on several issues.