Posted on May 16, 2011

Discrimination Against Potential Employees Will Cost Hobart Dots Store

Teresa Auch Schultz, Post-Tribune (Chicago), May 11, 2011

Hobart retailer Dots is agreeing to pay $246,500 to victims of discriminatory hiring practices, according to a document filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in Hammond.

Dots also agrees to take additional steps to help any of those people who are still interested in a job with the store at 1662 E. 80th Ave., according to the consent decree.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit against the retailer last year when a white woman who applied for a job claimed she was told by an employee they didn’t hire white people.

The EEOC has said in other court documents it has identified at least 22 other people who were denied a job because of their race and there are possibly 15 to 20 more people who were discriminated against.


Dots is still allowed to make its own hiring decisions but must keep track of racial information for anyone who applies for a job with the store.

Employees must make note of why someone was interviewed for a position but did not receive it, according to the decree. The store must then send four reports on its hiring practices to the EEOC over the next three years.

The consent decree also calls for employees to receive proper hiring training and to post notices that it is an equal opportunity employer.

29 responses to “Discrimination Against Potential Employees Will Cost Hobart Dots Store”

  1. Tom from UK says:

    Frankly it’s up to them who they hire and who they don’t, but you would hope that such decisions would be held against them by their potential white patrons, if not in the form of protest, at least in the form of the quiet decision to shop elsewhere.

    I for one don’t hold out much hope for the standard of customer service at such a place, certainly if the shopper in question were white.

    While there may not be the great tumult that would result were an employer to refuse to hire blacks, I look forward to the day this franchise inevitably goes under.

  2. Seek says:

    I’m conflicted on this one. On one level, the ruling is good because it gives anti-white activists a taste of their own medicine. On the other hand, it’s bad because anti-discrimination law, by its nature, is despotic; law professor Richard Epstein explained why in a lengthy book nearly 20 years ago. I would rather abolish these laws outright than win a few for whites by invoking them.

    As for Dots, it couldn’t have happened to a nicer company.

  3. Mr.White says:

    So much for the argument that we white’s are not being discriminated against in the work place! What happened at DOTS is symbolic of what’s happening all over this country, especially concerning state employment.

    Good luck here in CA getting a state job if you’re a white male!

  4. Bill R says:

    If she was a white MAN, the case would never have gone forward. It is a given that only White Males are the acceptable target world wide for condemnation, discrimination, and extermination as a viable race. Unless, of course, you are a White Christian Male, for then you get an extra helping. On the other hand, White Males DO get to pay most of the taxes that support programs designed to marginalize or eliminate White Males. They DO get to fight most of the wars, and do most of the dying. They DO get to lose jobs to off shore coloreds, or to invading browns. They DON’T get to use Welfare as a safety net though, when long term unemployed, merely pay the taxes for it when they do have a job. Welfare (ask the NAACP) is ONLY for the black man. Whites are forced to divest themselves of every asset before MAYBE being awarded Welfare assistance. White males, that is. White females with brown children and no (visible) mate ARE allowed to receive welfare. AFter all, they’ve proven their loyalties by mixing with blacks. And they are women.

  5. Jeddermann. says:

    “the store at 1662 E. 80th Ave”

    NOT a good area for a whitey to be, regardless of what they are doing, unless they are wearing a sidearm. And even then you are at risk.

  6. Svigor says:

    This is a no-brainer for the anti-white regime. You open up billions of dollars in wages to all blacks by opening up the paltry sums on offer from black businesses by “enforcing equally.” Actually, the latter isn’t even necessary – a couple of examples for the headlines is plenty.

  7. anonymous says:

    Ron Paul should tell people his views on this story.

    He should say that Dots should be allowed to hire only blacks, because the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional and is not a real law.

  8. Anonymous says:

    “Hobart retailer Dots is agreeing to pay $246,500 to victims of discriminatory hiring practices, according to a document filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in Hammond.”

    That’s all! If this would have been a substantiated case of discrimination against any other self-aggrieved ethnicity or racial group, the award would have been in the millions!

    We have along way to go before we achieve equality it seems!

  9. Tom S. says:

    Are you kidding me? About sixty Whites were only awarded $246,500! And thats probably BEFORE the lawyers get their cut! They’ll be lucky if they have enough to buy a happy meal! If the situation were reversed, you’d be looking at MILLIONS with a large part going to the NAACP. They would also have “diversity” training for every current\future employee.

  10. Tim in Indiana says:

    It seems like there have been a number of discrimination suits lately. One of them was, unsurprisingly, when a Big Lots store moved from mostly black Merrillville to mostly white Hobart. It makes you wonder how any company can stay in business.

    Already the area of the Dots store in question has lost an Old Country Buffet (which was very popular with black customers) and two major bookstores (which were not).

    The free enterprise system actually discourages discrimination, since businesses will tend to hire anyone who will do good work at slightly lower wages. American businesses are all too eager to hire illegal aliens, for example, but for some reason are bound and determined to discriminate against hardworking blacks.

    But no matter: whenever the government gets involved, you can be sure it will find discrimination everywhere it looks.

  11. gemalo says:

    Can’t wait till they have their first mob+rob there. Black thieves over-running an all-black establishment. Poetic justice.

  12. Anonymous says:

    One can only hope the next successful discrimination hiring practices suit is levied against the post office.

  13. content_pessimest says:

    I am from Hammond Indiana, born and raised there for 20 years until my family wised up and moved away in 1980. To give you an idea of the demographics, Hammond and Hobart lies in the extreme NW corner of Indiana between South Chicago and Gary Indiana. That should tell you everything you need to know.

  14. Anonymous says:

    . I want blacks to hire blacks.. I can think of no better way to insure that a company fails than for it to have an all black

    workforce. The other upside to this is that once black

    demand this sort of segregation we can finally be left alone.

  15. sbuffalonative says:

    I agree that this store should have the right to hire who they want. However, as long as blacks deny that right to white businesses, they need to be held to the same standard and suffer the same punishment.

  16. Anonymous says:

    People just don’t get it.

    Anything but a meritocracy is genocide against white people.

  17. jewamongyou says:

    I was recently at the Philadelphia airport and noticed that practically all the employees there are black. There are a multitude of restaurants there for every taste – and every single one of them was staffed almost entirely by blacks (there was one white woman and one older white man). The only exception was the Asian restaurant, which was staffed by three Asian women. That’s where I got my meal. Not because I have a problem with restaurants being staffed by blacks, but because it seemed to be a matter of policy for them. If the airport had been almost entirely staffed by whites, the EEOC and a variety of other organizations would be all over them with threats and lawsuits. No excuses would be accepted on their behalf. So I voted the only way I could, with my money.

    Also, I agree with Seek (#2) above.

  18. Anonymous says:

    4 — Bill R wrote at 6:54 PM on May 16:

    “If she was a white MAN, the case would never have gone forward. It is a given that only White Males are the acceptable target world wide for condemnation, discrimination, and extermination as a viable race. Unless, of course, you are a White Christian Male,”

    I’ve been a white male all my life, but not a Christian. I’m an non-believer. If you’re not in the religion club, the shut out is huge, especially if you are in business in a mostly white area. All people want to talk about is politics and religion, the two big no, no’s for businessmen. But whether it’s some Christian congregation or for example, Mormons, they network and shun non-members. It’s been a real tough time, being a non-believer in this country. that combined with the anti-white conditions of today has left me unemployed and dependent on my wife’s income. I try to do what I can to help us out, but all together, I wish I had never returned from Europe.

  19. Seneca the Younger says:

    Hey, let them have their all black businesses. There are a lot of bonuses to this.

    1. “Hip” liberals that travel to the bad side of town will see first hand that they are hated and possibly wake up.

    2. These businesses will likely go out of business and if this a franchise, corporate execs will avoid these areas like the plague and put new investments in white communities, creating for jobs for whites (hopefully).

    3. Judges weigh 1/3 of all decisions based on past judgements on similar cases in the past. One could argue opening an all-white business or keeping all-white employees based on if this ruling gets thrown out. What can I say, I’m an optimist.

    And yes,comment 8, so true! I have seen a black woman get millions for just herself for less than this.

  20. Canadian White Guy says:

    Although I feel that the company is probably limiting itself in a big way as far as using the entire demographic in order to get the best qualified workers. The company should be able to have the right to hire who ever they like. In order to run an efficient, productive business race should never be used (or considered for that mater) in the determination of job qualifications. It’s supposed to be about business!

  21. Lakeview Senior says:

    It’s a wonder that the City of Chicago isn’t sued by White job applicants who are denied jobs on a regular basis. Just walk thru Chicago’s City Hall or the adjacent County Building and count the White faces you see working in any capacity there. The same situation exists in the Chicago Transit Authority(CTA). Very seldom do you encounter a White male driving a CTA bus or el train. When the Cubs baseball team is playing at Wrigley Field on the City’s northside you’ll see young Black males and females directing traffic on the main arteries but you’ll never see a young White male employee amongst them. Same goes for our museums of Science and Industry, Field Museum and the Art Institute. I always wonder what the average tourist thinks. You would think that there are no White males looking for these types of jobs. Now that Rahm Emanuel is our new Mayor, you can bet this won’t change.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Poster # 18.

    I’ve been a white male all my life, but not a Christian. I’m an non-believer. If you’re not in the religion club, the shut out is huge, especially if you are in business in a mostly white area.


    What in the world are you talking about? I have NEVER filled out any application or had an interview that ever asked if I was a Christian, an atheist, a Mormon, etc! Maybe if you wanted to be an Elder or pastor! What religion “club” are you even talking about? What kind of “business’ (in a mostly White area) are you even talking about? Please fill in the blanks.

  23. AvgDude says:

    The fact that it was believed at that store that blatant racial discrimination against whites was not something to worry about from a legal standpoint says everything about the debacle of the last 40 years of government mismanagement of racial policy in this country. The civil rights movement was supposed to usher in equality. Instead, it ushered in decades of “compensatory” racism that now appears to be a permanent state of affairs in the US. 67% of the population is white, and they have to be treated like second class citizens, suffering from open racial discrimination, physical assaults, rapes, and murders at the hands of the 13% of the population that has contributed virtually nothing of any lasting value to our society in the past 150 years. We need to start getting angrier or we are doomed.

  24. Spartan24 says:

    Being that I live in Utah with a Mormon population of about 80% I can also say that there are really no barriers to getting a job here. The only caveat would be if a person was trying to get some sort of very high level management or CEO position or was trying to get elected in politics- but even those have exceptions. It IS illegal to ask someone their religious preference- if any before hiring them.

    I do agree- this situation is pretty strange. First of all someone had the ignorance to actually admit that they werent interested in hiring Whites, usually there will be some hemming and hawing and a statement like “we are just taking applications at this time” or some other nonsense. Second, it is good to hear that someone actually was able to file a lawsuit since it is extremely difficult for Whites to file such discrimination suits even with as blatant a situation as this. I was also wondering just what type of outlet is “Dots” I Googled it and all I was able to find was the ice cream company and some sort of clothing store. Personally I would not want to work at a company that did not want to hire me in the first place!

  25. Anonymous says:

    If blacks take over the U.S. civil service administrations of most big cities and establish their own retail and service (food, security, etc.) job categories in those same social networks, could it actually be that we will see ‘in less than 25 years’, the relaxation of A/A policies which leverage them, exclusively? Are we talking only about giving them the exclusivity of space in their own cities to establish their own hegemony? What does that say about the ineptitude of black scholastic achievement and the decrepitude of places like Detroit and others?

    There cannot be no safety for whites in a world where whites are necessary to prop up the economic structure.

    I swear, it looks like a setup, like blacks have been warned to get their hooks in deep because the next racial salmon to go upstream is the hispanics as the Asians leapfrog whites to high level administrative and technical positions.

    The question must be, why we are the ones being exclusively forced to become dependent on ‘the system’ of laws set up to protect other ethnies in a white majority country when no other continent on the planet has anything but widespread acceptance of native-racial supremacy, no matter how vicious and ineffective it may be at self rule.

    I smell Nanny Stateism as a herding psychology inherent to ‘small civil successes = submission by admission to weakness’.

  26. Anonymous says:

    I agree with Poster #18. I live in an area of California that is half White, 1/3 Hispanic and 1/5 Black.

    The Whites in this area hire other Whites only if they are members of the same church. The Mormons (LDS) are especially notorious for this. At a local branch of a state agency, a Mormon woman has become manager and she has hired nothing but other Mormons since.

    The aerospace industry is controlled by people who attend a local fundamentalist Baptist church, as are jobs in local corporate call centers, banks, etc. They don’t care for educated people at these places, I have noticed. It is also desirable if you are a Republican, but that’s still not enough. They prefer you to be a member of their flock and, how can I say it?…dumb, basically.

    The Hispanics have their own networks and many of them are intertwined with church organizations too. The blacks in my area, for the most part, are on welfare or some other public assistance.

    If you are an educated, white male with no particular church affiliation, you are screwed!

  27. Anonymous says:

    Jewamongyou, I’ve noticed similar things myself further down the coast. I relocated to the DC Area after being pushed out of my last job elsewhere. I’ve been looking for work at a lot of various places, and the thought came across my mind that I should consider looking for work with the WMATA (the group that runs the DC Metro and Metrobus). I gave up on the idea shortly thereafter when I realized that during all my experiences as a passenger in that system, I could not recall seeing even one white person in uniform for them.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Every bank, post office, government office, supermarket, retail store, Dr’s office and just about every other business in S. California is guilty of not hiring Whites.

    I try to patronize only businesses that hire Whites and to use only White professionals and employees. With great difficulty I have found only White American male Drs. I am disabled so need a lot of medical care.

    What I am getting angry about is that although I try to show racial solidarity by patronizing only that rare breed in S. California, they hire only non White clerks, nurses and assistants.

    Since the last White butcher retired from my local supermarket 4 years ago, they have not hired a single White.

  29. No Affiliations says:

    What in the world are you talking about? I have NEVER filled out any application or had an interview that ever asked if I was a Christian, an atheist, a Mormon, etc!


    I can understand what he’s talking about. In some parts of the country, the religion “club” is very strong.

    Of course you’ll never see such a question on a form! Don’t be silly. But people talk, they pry, and they find out.

    Where I live now, nobody would think of asking you what church you go to. That would be considered inappropriate and downright nosey. I have known people for years who have never asked me anything about religion, and I don’t know anything about theirs. It’s a private matter. But in some parts of the country, upon meeting a new person, it is one of the first things they want to find out.

    When I lived in a certain city in the middle of the country, I was regularly asked about my affiliation. When I answered (as tactfuly as I could, without telling them it was none of their business) that I was “unaffiliated”, that immediatly sent up a flag that here was a soul available for saving. They insisted on inviting me to their churches, and would hardly take “no” for an answer. When I showed no interest and continued, politely, to decline their invitations, some of them became downright hostile. I actually lost one job because of that.

    Yes, there is intense pressure to join the club.