LEGAL landmark 9-0 SC ruling suggests that all DEI-based hirings may now be legally actionable as it makes it much easier for workers to sue.

jward

passin' thru
Freedom Piper
@FreeThinkerInc

BREAKING: In a landmark 9-0 ruling on Wednesday that you will never hear about in the media, the US Supreme Court has undercut all DEI-based discrimination, sending the Marxists into a tizzy.

The US Supreme Court's ruling that a St. Louis police sergeant can sue over a job transfer she claims was discriminatory lays the foundation for legal action against employers who push discrimination against white people in job hiring, work assignment and promotion. That’s right, those “diversity-preferred” job postings, the practice of passing over whites for promotions, discriminatory job transfers, pushing unfair diversity trainings, etc…all of these are now legally actionable.

The ruling was championed by human rights groups as "an enormous win for workers,” but has lawyers for companies like Disney warning that it could have a chilling effect on employers' diversity initiatives.

Disney’s "Pale and Male is Stale" policy is a prime example. Disney has allegedly used it to drive out white animators by giving them the worst assignments, even though they them have the most experience, skill, and seniority, in order to make the job humiliating enough that they quit…which many of them have done.

The same companies argue that there is ‘good discrimination’ and “bad discrimination’, that white people should be purposely disadvantaged to pave the way for diversity. The lawyers stated that the decision will ‘complicate’ DEI programs and limit their ability to discriminate against white men.

The Supreme Court torpedoed these claims, re-asserting that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Further, the court has established a relatively ‘low standard’ for bringing discrimination cases. The victim need not suffer ‘actual harm’. An employee only must show "some harm" under the terms of their employment, AND that harm need not be "material," "substantial" or "serious." The decision makes it much easier for workers to sue over discriminatory practices.

This is a big win for equality!
 

jward

passin' thru
Freedom Piper
@FreeThinkerInc

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, and even stated the “some harm” requirement, though a much lower barrier to litigation, was in his opinion not required. His biew is that no harm need be proven, simply the ACT of discrimination on basis of race, color, etc is itself ‘harm’.

The road is paved for equality to once agin be restored to our struggling Marxist-controlled Republic.
View: https://twitter.com/FreeThinkerInc/status/1781696788358926617
 

jward

passin' thru
We are starting to see some of the pendulums swing.
Now, whether that will only carry them further into the dark side, ultimately, remains to be seen.

I'm too cynical to believe the institutions of the corpse of a once great nation can actually be healthy enough to work as intended, and right our listing ship.
- but all these lil wins in the legal system give me some hope, despite my doubts.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
Freedom Piper
@FreeThinkerInc

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, and even stated the “some harm” requirement, though a much lower barrier to litigation, was in his opinion not required. His biew is that no harm need be proven, simply the ACT of discrimination on basis of race, color, etc is itself ‘harm’.

The road is paved for equality to once agin be restored to our struggling Marxist-controlled Republic.
View: https://twitter.com/FreeThinkerInc/status/1781696788358926617
Hopefully some sort of similar sanity can be quickly applied to Biden's Title IX travesty.
 

kyrsyan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
It was always actionable by law. But prior to recent times, it was very hard to bring such a case to court if you were white and/or male. There was a very high bar of proof for such a case.

Now it is being made clear that it won't be tolerated, regardless of skin color. Which, honestly, is how it should be. People should be hired for their ability, not their body.

And from my snarky side, I sometimes wish I could see the reaction when some people realize that those laws aren't just for people with darker skin tones. Just some, because I have had some run ins with people that think they can't be racist because of their skin tone. Those were also the same people who think that the word slavery only applies to people with their skin tone. And slave owner only applies to people with a very light skin tone. But I also know quite a few that think the above mentioned folks are fools.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
Eventually The left will go after the lawyers that file the suits

And the People can in turn do the same and the leftist lawyer's disappear one by one.
Shakespeare once said: "First kill all the Lawyers". It's been done once before that I'm aware of and it seems a political system cannot function without them.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
What I find fascinating about some of the most recent rulings is the number of unanimous decisions made by the court. That suggests that some of the "laws" or situations are so out-of-hand and unconstitutional that a good judge (one who looks at the law and the constitution to make a ruling) will see them as unconstitutional even if they are from a far-left, moderate, or far-right position by nature.

That speaks volumes about how far "off" this administration and some of the previous ones (especially both Obama and the Clintons) were in some of their demands and executive orders. Not that I think Trump's administration will come out 100 percent perfect; no administration or President is, especially when you add in the use of executive orders to bypass Congress over the last twenty years or so.

But many of the policies and laws being overturned seem to have come out of Democratic administrations, including the current one. The big problem I saw coming even when I was leaving government employment in the early 1990s (mostly under Bush One) was that too often, Executive orders were used in all sorts of ways to get around Congress, and the anti-discrimination laws were being enforced in reverse. Rather than helping minorities or the disabled (including me) get jobs, they were being used to deny employment to white professionals, especially men.

I saw this as a clerk in my last job, when my boss was forced to hire a deaf young man with a terrible work ethic, who was positively rude and obnoxious to colleagues and others he had to work with. He was impossible to get rid of. He filed a claim that I had a larger desk than he did, and he was "discriminated against." Mine was a few inches larger. The area had been built that way. I'm sure he took it over when I left. Leaving my boss to assign other people to do the work I wasn't there to do and he wouldn't (or could not) do.

I have worked with deaf people before and now need hearing aids myself, so I know the difference between needing a reasonable accommodation and someone who expects to be paid for sitting there because they are special or simply refuses to learn the job.
 
Top