March, 24 2017, 09:45am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Anna Susman, anna.susman@berlinrosen.com, (646) 200-5285
Isabel Urbano, isabel.urbano@berlinrosen.com, (646) 680-0905
Fight for $15, Movement for Black Lives to Join Forces in Nationwide Protest to Fight Racism, Raise Pay
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: ‘Together, We Can Be Architects of Democracy’
MEMPHIS, TENN.
The Fight for $15 and the Movement for Black Lives will take to the streets nationwide April 4 - the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination - in a two-dozen-city "Fight Racism, Raise Pay" protest.
Thousands of underpaid workers, local racial justice activists, elected officials and clergy will hold rallies, marches, teach-ins, and other demonstrations to stress that the push for economic and racial justice remains as deeply linked today as when Dr. King was killed in 1968 supporting striking black sanitation workers in Memphis, Tenn. The coast-to-coast protests will culminate in a march by thousands of workers, national civil rights leaders and politicians on the Lorraine Motel in downtown Memphis, where they'll hold a memorial at the site of Dr. King's assassination 49 years ago.
The "Fight Racism, Raise Pay" protests, planned for more than two-dozen cities from Atlanta to Milwaukee to Las Vegas, come as working Americans face an onslaught of attacks on their right to join together for higher pay and confront racist policies from the White House down to local police departments. Republican lawmakers in more than two-dozen states have introduced legislation aimed at cracking down on protestors like those in the Fight for $15 and the Movement for Black Lives.
The marchers will converge in Memphis weeks after a local Fight for $15 worker organization filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city, charging its police department with widespread illegal surveillance and intimidation to stifle worker protest. Rallies on April 4 in Minneapolis, Detroit and Durham will condemn anti-protest legislation proposed by lawmakers in those states.
"We're joining together with the Movement for Black Lives because our two movements have a common bond in fighting the racism that keeps down people of color everywhere," said Latierika Blair, 23, who works at McDonald's in Memphis, Tenn., and is paid $7.35/hour. "McDonalds conspires with police to try to silence us when we speak out for higher pay. Corporations and politicians act to keep workers and black people from getting ahead in America. We should be investing in our people and communities. That's why we have to protest, and that's why we will keep speaking out together until we win."
The April 4 protests come as newly empowered corporate interests and right-wing politicians attempt to strip away the rights of workers to organize across the country. Union jobs in state and local government - which have historically provided a pathway to the middle class for workers of color - are under attack from corporate-backed politicians like Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, who has refused to bargain a contract with state employees for nearly two years in an effort to break their union. And people of color remain over-represented in low-paying industries like fast-food: more than half of black workers and nearly 60 percent of Latino workers are paid less than $15, according to an analysis by the National Employment Law Project.
"White supremacy and corporate greed have always been linked in America," said Chelsea Fuller of the Movement for Black Lives. "The fast-food workers who are going on strike for $15/hour and the right to a union are resisting the same institutional racism and oppression that fuels police violence across the country. We are stronger when we stand together, and so our movements are going to keep fighting back against the twin evils of racial and economic inequality that continue to hold back black and brown people."
The April 4 protests are the latest wave of defiance against reactionary attacks on working people, people of color, women and immigrants. Just weeks after the November 2016 election, thousands of workers in the Fight for $15 walked off the job from coast to coast and engaged in waves of civil disobedience. The walkouts marked the start of a new era of mass demonstration, including the Women's March and a rash of protests at the nation's airports following President Trump's announcement of an immigration ban from predominantly Muslim countries. The April 4 Fight for $15/Movement for Black Lives protests will kick off a wave of protests around the country in the following weeks, including demonstrations calling attention to immigrants' rights, climate change and tax policy that benefits the rich.
Dr. King saw a common bond between the labor and civil rights movements and believed that union rights were fundamental to achieving racial justice. As King said in 1961, "the two most dynamic and cohesive liberal forces in the country are the labor movement and the Negro freedom movement. Together we can be architects of democracy."
"Dr. King spent his final days standing with Memphis sanitation workers because he saw the deep link between the labor movement and the civil rights movement," said the Rev. William Barber II, founder of the social justice organization Repairers of the Breach. "Dr. King knew that if the racism and poverty are inextricably linked, our struggles to confront them must be inseparable as well. On April 4, we follow in Dr. King's footsteps to march on Memphis and take on the twin scourges of racial and economic inequality."
The April 4 actions will conclude with a national moment of silence at 6:01pm Central - the exact time of Dr. King's assassination - when Americans across the country will reflect on Dr. King's dream for racial and economic justice and how it connects to theirs.
Racial justice organizations participating in actions on April 4 include Black Lives Matter chapters in Los Angeles, Calif., Atlanta, Ga., Broward County, Fla., Hillsborough County, Fla., Chicago, Ill., and Flint, Mich.; NAACP chapters in Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia and Las Vegas, Nev., and other groups including Black Youth Project 100 and Workers Center for Racial Justice in Chicago, and Dream Defenders in Tampa and Miami.
The Fight for $15 has built deep ties with civil rights groups and leaders across the country. U.S. Rep. John Lewis joined Atlanta fast-food workers on a strike line in August 2013, encouraging them to, "Keep walking, keep marching, keep talking, keep pushing." In the summer of 2014, the NAACP passed a resolution backing the Fight for $15; in the winter of 2015 Memphis sanitation workers who participated in the 1968 strike in Memphis, during which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, implored a gathering of fast-food workers at Dr. King's church in Atlanta to keep fighting for $15 and union rights; and faith leaders of all stripes have echoed the workers' moral argumentfor dignity on the job. Workers have developed deep ties with the Movement for Black Lives and marched alongside activists calling for racial justice from Ferguson, Mo. to Baton Rouge, La, to Milwaukee, Wisc.
The Fight for $15 has spurred wage hikes for 22 million underpaid workers, including more than 10 million who are on their way to $15/hour, by convincing everyone from voters to politicians to corporations to raise pay. Workers have taken what many viewed as an outlandish proposition - $15/hour- and made it the new labor standard in New York, California, Seattle and Washington, D.C. Home care workers in Massachusetts and Oregon won $15/hour statewide minimum wages and companies including Facebook, Aetna, Amalgamated Bank, JP Morgan Chase and Nationwide Insurance have raised pay to $15/hour or higher. Workers in nursing homes, public schools and hospitals have won $15/hour via collective bargaining. The movement was credited as one of the reasons wages for lower-paid workers grew faster than for upper-income workers last year, marking a significant break with the runaway wage growth captured by wealthy Americans over the past several decades.
"Every day workers of color across this country face deep-seated racism that would seem to be out of Dr. King's era, but is, sadly, still reality today," said Kendall Fells, national organizing director of the Fight for $15. "But workers and activists are standing up and speaking out, the way Dr. King would, to fight racism and raise wages, and we are not giving up until companies like McDonald's get the message that workers are worth more than minimum wage."
Fast food workers are coming together all over the country to fight for $15 an hour and the right to form a union without retaliation. We work for corporations that are making tremendous profits, but do not pay employees enough to support our families and to cover basic needs like food, health care, rent and transportation.
LATEST NEWS
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Act of Retaliation': EPA Suspends 140+ Employees for Signing 'Declaration of Dissent'
The employees were put on leave after they signed a letter saying the Trump EPA's actions "endanger public health and erode scientific progress."
Jul 04, 2025
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put 144 employees on leave after they signed a letter criticizing the Trump administration's "harmful" policies.
EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch accused the employees of "undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration's agenda." But the union that represents these employees is calling it an act of illegal "retaliation."
The "declaration of dissent", published by Stand Up for Science Monday, had been signed by 620 people as of Thursday. Addressed to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the letter accused the administration of "recklessly undermining" the agency's mission under his watch. It accused the administration of "ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters."
"This administration's actions directly contradict EPA's own scientific assessments on human health risks, most notably regarding asbestos, mercury, and greenhouse gases," the letter said.
Since Trump retook office, the administration has eviscerated policies meant to contain pollution, slashing funding for green energy production and electric vehicles while championing increased fossil fuel drilling and consumption. It has also rolled back the enforcement of limits on cancer-causing "forever chemicals" in water.
The signatories also pointed to the Trump EPA's "undermining of public trust" by using official channels to trumpet "misinformation and overtly partisan rhetoric."
They called out EPA press releases, which have referred to climate science as a "religion," EPA grants as "green slush funds," and "clean coal" as "beautiful." The letter also suggested the EPA had violated the Hatch Act by promoting political initiatives like Trump's tariffs and the Republican budget reconciliation bill.
"Make no mistake: your actions endanger public health and erode scientific progress—not only in America—but around the world," the letter said.
The employees also accused the administration of "promoting a culture of fear." They cited comments by top Trump officials, such as Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, who has said he wanted to put EPA employees "in trauma" and make them unable "to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains."
While some signatories signed their names, many others chose to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. That retaliation came Thursday, when—according to The New York Times—144 employees received an email putting them on leave for the next two weeks "pending an administrative investigation."
The decision was widely criticized as a violation of the employees' First Amendment rights.
Tim Whitehouse, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has previously represented EPA and other employees, said federal employees are allowed to publicly criticize the administration they work for.
"The letter of dissent did really nothing to undermine or sabotage the agenda of the administration," Whitehouse told The Washington Post. "We believe strongly that the EPA should protect the First Amendment rights of their employees."
Bill Wolfe, a former environmental policy professional with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said that the letter "was a classic form of whistleblowing that is protected by federal whistleblower laws and the 1st Amendment, as upheld by federal courts."
Justin Chen, the union representative for EPA employees under the American Federation of Government Employees, told the Times that the agency's actions were "clearly an act of retaliation" and said the union would "protect our members to the full extent of the law."
Despite the punishment, one of the signatories anonymously told The Post that they had no regrets.
"I took the risk knowing what was up," the employee wrote. "I'll say it before, and now it rings even more true … if this is the EPA they want me to work for, then I don't want to work for the EPA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular