I don’t feel like the article provided enough information to make a judgement on the validity of this. Just having seniority or a college degree doesn’t automatically make you the better candidate. I am suspicious of this during pride though…
That’s because we do not know the validity of this yet.
The woman in question believes she was passed over for a promotion that was ultimately given to a gay woman. She attempted to sue, which would have given us the information needed to decide if her case was valid in the first place. It never got that far; the courts said she couldn’t sue at all because she’s a member of a “majority” group (straight people). It’s basically a legalese version of the belief that “You’re straight/white therefore you can’t be discriminated against at all.”
The Supreme Court said that’s not the case and struck down lower courts’ rulings that members of a majority group need to meet a higher standard before even bringing the case in the first place. The SC ruling was 9-0, and did not discuss the merits of the case itself.
The woman who originally brought the suit can now sue her employer in court. Then we’ll be able to get enough information about whether her particular case was valid in the first place.
That’s surprising.
This Supreme Court doing something to support equality and not stifle it instead? Oh, wait—it’s probably just a happy accident that them dismissing the idea that discrimination requires privilege lines up with their quest to make sure the “right people” hurt.
Thank you for an informative and insightful comment.
According to the article, she wasn’t just passed over for a promotion, she was also actively demoted, both times for someone LGBTQ+.
“Not long after denying her the new position, her supervisors removed her from her existing job, telling her that they had concerns about her leadership and offering her a demotion that came with a substantial pay cut. She was replaced by a gay man with less seniority.”
The trick for her will be proving it was discriminatory and not for other reasons.
Thank you for the clarification and useful explanation. She should be able to go to court to have her case heard. That does make sense and is a genuine step towards equality.
I would bet she was passed over for the promotion because of her attitude, because you have to be an awful person to sue for this.
What’s the difference between this case and every other employment discrimination case? Because she’s straight and white?
The white part doesn’t even matter. This is just an awful person blaming DEI for their failures.
And exactly how do you know that?
I know the white part doesn’t matter because the actual suit is for being straight alone. The justices (unnecessarily) added the discussion of race.
I know the suit is an attack on DEI because it made it to the Supreme court. It takes years and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars to maintain a court case. Private individuals usually can’t afford this. The client, who works for the Ohio Department of Youth services, certainly couldn’t. Most SC cases are funded by special interest groups looking to push a particular change in the law. Trump and the Conservatives have made it very clear that they are against DEI because it makes it harder to discriminate against minorities. This decision weakens the protections for those groups.
I know she’s awful because no decent person would bring such an obviously bigoted suit.
I know the white part doesn’t matter because the actual suit is for being straight alone. The justices (unnecessarily) added the discussion of race.
They added the discussion of race to ensure that everybody knew that it applied to every majority group.
I know the suit is an attack on DEI because it made it to the Supreme court.
So the Supreme Court is only handling DEI cases now?
It takes years and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars to maintain a court case.
You do realize this case dates back to 2017, right?
Private individuals usually can’t afford this. The client, who works for the Ohio Department of Youth services, certainly couldn’t. Most SC cases are funded by special interest groups looking to push a particular change in the law.
First, how do you know what she can and can’t afford? Second, why does the source of her funding for her legal bills matter? There are lawyers who take cases pro-bono if they believe that the notoriety they get from those cases will advance their careers and therefore make them even more money in the future. Her funding source is both unknown and irrelevant.
Trump and the Conservatives have made it very clear that they are against DEI because it makes it harder to discriminate against minorities.
This case started about 7-8 years before Trump turned DEI into political poison.
This decision weakens the protections for those groups.
No it does not. At no point does it discuss the merits of the case, and there is a very real chance that she’ll ultimately lose the lawsuit in the end. All this decision does is give her the opportunity to sue, not a guarantee that she’ll win. We do not know if this case has merit yet.
I know she’s awful because no decent person would bring such an obviously bigoted suit.
Just some food for thought. Ever think that telling a bunch of straight, white people that it’s perfectly OK to discriminate against them might just be one of the reasons why those straight, white people suddenly have a problem with DEI? Racism and bigotry are wrong regardless of what side of the issue you’re on, and reverse discrimination is still discrimination. DEI means Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It’s meant to combat all forms of discrimination. If you think it’s OK to discriminate against straight, white people (or any other group for that matter) because you’re a member of the minority (I’m speaking generally here, since I obviously don’t know your race), then you’re not actually against discrimination. You just want your turn to be the bigot.
Jesus Christ, please read what I wrote again because you obviously failed to understand what I was explaining.
Not just any case gets before the SC. They choose cases for a reason, usually because it involves an aspect of the law they wish to clarify or (increasingly commonly) overturn. Special interest groups shop around for cases that they can find a defense for to make the political changes they want (for example Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado was funded by Alliance Defending Freedom). As you said this case began in 2017. There is NO WAY a middle manager at a state agency can afford to pay some of the best lawyers in the country for 8 years. She’s not some secret billionaire. Yes, her funding is unknown but that’s exactly why it is relevant. Dark money groups pushing political agendas are manipulating the justice system.
This woman is just a convenient tool to weaken minority protections. Previous SC precedent from 1973 holds that Title VII cases consider a history of discrimination of groups in question when determining how much evidence is required to prove the case. There is no history of straight discrimination but there is significant past history and current LGBT discrimination. It makes NO SENSE to treat these events as equally probably but that is exactly what overturning this decision does.
This strips protections for LGBT, black, disabled people, non-Christians, and other protected minority groups. Now to prove they are discriminated against, they cannot rely on the well-proven precedent of this fact. This makes discrimination against these groups easier which of course is the point of all this anti-DEI stuff. It is Christian white supremacy in action.
Jesus Christ, please read what I wrote again because you obviously failed to understand what I was explaining.
This will be my last reply on the matter as your replies show not only a complete (and possibly even intentional) misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court decided, but your reasoning has become little more than conspiracy theories mixed with bigotry.
Not just any case gets before the SC. They choose cases for a reason, usually because it involves an aspect of the law they wish to clarify or (increasingly commonly) overturn. Special interest groups shop around for cases that they can find a defense for to make the political changes they want (for example Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado was funded by Alliance Defending Freedom). As you said this case began in 2017. There is NO WAY a middle manager at a state agency can afford to pay some of the best lawyers in the country for 8 years. She’s not some secret billionaire. Yes, her funding is unknown but that’s exactly why it is relevant. Dark money groups pushing political agendas are manipulating the justice system.
You have absolutely no idea what her financial situation is, and you’re using that lack of knowledge as proof of sinister acts. Since you don’t know where the money is coming from, it must therefore be some kind of dark money billionaire? For all you know she could have inherited $100k from her grandmother or has investment money tucked away somewhere. Unless you have some kind of proof of this “dark money”, her funding source is none of your damn business, nor does it have a shred of bearing on this case. And without said proof, your dark money theory is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
This woman is just a convenient tool to weaken minority protections. Previous SC precedent from 1973 holds that Title VII cases consider a history of discrimination of groups in question when determining how much evidence is required to prove the case. There is no history of straight discrimination but there is significant past history and current LGBT discrimination. It makes NO SENSE to treat these events as equally probably but that is exactly what overturning this decision does.
No, it does not. Not even remotely. The only thing that this case did was remove the higher burden required to even bring a reverse discrimination case in the first place. That’s it. Nothing more. It did not discuss or consider the merits of the case. All this did was give this woman the right to be heard. It does not give her a guaranteed win, or even any leverage. There is nothing stopping whatever judge is assigned to the case to either dismiss the case or rule in the employer’s favor because she didn’t meet that higher standard anyway.
All this case gives her is the right to be heard. That’s it.
This strips protections for LGBT, black, disabled people, non-Christians, and other protected minority groups. Now to prove they are discriminated against, they cannot rely on the well-proven precedent of this fact. This makes discrimination against these groups easier which of course is the point of all this anti-DEI stuff. It is Christian white supremacy in action.
The case says absolutely no such thing. It does not strip away protections from a single person, nor does it prevent a judge from dismissing the case or ruling in favor of protected minority groups in any way. All it says is that members of the majority group have the same rights to bring discrimination lawsuits as anyone else. It does nothing regarding the validity or legal weight of those claims.
Far be it from me to cast aspersions based on appearances, but she looks like the most Karen who ever Karened. The Uberkaren. That may have been at play.
She may be a perfectly nice individual, but getting to the Supreme Court is the ultimate “I want to speak to your manager!” move.
