Carolyn Hicks-Washington v. The Housing Authority of the City of Fort Lauderdale

Title VII of the Civil Eights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and other federal and state antidiscrimination laws make it unlawful for an employer to treat individuals differently in the terms and conditions of employment and/or take adverse employment decisions because of their race, color, sex, age and/or membership in other protected categories. In the 21st century, the operation of biases and prejudices are not always blatant, but as we all bear witness, various forms of discrimination are alive and well throughout American society. Given the realities of institutionalized racism, the well-documented “conservative judicial agenda” that has taken place since the Reagan administration and the historical, as well as modern-day, underrepresentation of federal judges of color on the bench, the pyramid of evidence supports that this glaring disparate impact, specifically against African Americans litigants, from having the merits of their civil rights cases decided by a jury, is not “accidental” or “due to chance.” As a result, Hicks-Washington’s petition presents the following questions •

1. Do the actions of federal judges Federico A. Moreno, Barry S. Seltzer and various appellate court judges in the Eleventh Circuit constitute a conspiracy to interfere and deprive Hicks-Washington of her constitutional and civil rights under the color of law?

2. If "federal courts were entrusted with ultimate enforcement responsibility" of Title VII, is it a constitutional violation of due process for the federal court to conclude that a petitioner failed to “exhaust administrative remedies” if the EEOC refused to conduct a complete investigation into all of the petitioner’s claims of discrimination?

3. Is it a constitutional violation of due process for the court to deny claims of race, color and sex discrimination under Section 1981 and/or the FRCA for “failure to exhaust administrative remedies” if there are no “administrative remedies” to exhaust under the statutes in question?