Tag Archive: Discrimination


Texas Battle Over Confederate Flag License Plate Headed To Supreme Court

 

 

 

 

 

” A long-standing legal battle between the state and a veterans group vying for a Confederate flag license plate will get its day in the nation’s highest court.

  The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear oral arguments in a case involving Texas’ ability to choose the messages it allows on government-issued license plates.

  John McConnell, an attorney for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said he fully expects the Supreme Court to uphold an appeals court ruling in favor of his group in what he calls a “simple case.”

“ When the state gets in the business of selling space … for an organization or nonprofit or what have you, they cannot discriminate,” he said. “They’re a government entity, not a private entity. They are constrained by the First Amendment.” “

 

Dallas News

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transgenders Recognised Third Gender, Will Get Reservation In Jobs

 

 

 

 

 

” Ridiculed for their different sexual identity and orientation, transgenders were on Tuesday granted the status of third gender by the Supreme Court in a landmark ruling that will entitle them to benefits of the Centre and state government welfare schemes.

  About 2 million transgenders live in India, where the term hijra is commonly used to describe eunuchs, transgender people, transsexuals, cross-dressers and transvestites. Most of them face discrimination and abuse in the society. 

” By recognising them as third gender, this court is not only upholding the rule of law but also advancing justice to the class that has so far been deprived of its legitimate natural and constitutional rights,” it said.”

This should really piss off the Muslims  , the Hindustan Times has more .

Obama Judge: Mexican Border Fence May Have “Disparate Impact” On Minorities

 

 

 

 

” A Homeland Security initiative to put fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border could discriminate against minorities, according to an Obama-appointed federal judge who’s ruled that the congressionally-approved project may have a “disparate impact on lower-income minority communities.”

  This of course means that protecting the porous—and increasingly violent—southern border is politically incorrect. At least that’s what the public college professor at the center of the case is working to prove and this month she got help from a sympathetic federal judge. Denise Gilman, a clinical professor at the taxpayer-funded University of Texas-Austin, is researching the “human rights impact” of erecting a barrier to protect the U.S. from terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug traffickers and other serious threats.

  The professor sued in federal court arguing that the public interest in how the fence will impact landowners outweighed any privacy concerns. The data will allow the public to analyze whether the government is treating property owners equally and fairly or whether the wall is being built in such a way that it disadvantages “minority property owners,” according to the professor. It will also help the public understand the actual dimensions of the wall and decisions related to where it’s placed.

  Judge Beryl Howell, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Obama in 2010, agreed that the public interest is significant. Her 37-page ruling also seems to indicate that she bought the discrimination argument. “Revealing the identities of landowners in the wall’s planned construction site may shed light on the impact on indigenous communities, the disparate impact on lower-income minority communities, and the practices of private contractors,” Howell wrote.”

 

Judicial Watch has the story

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rules For Equal Coverage By Employers Remain Elusive Under Health Law

 

 

 

” The Obama administration is delaying enforcement of another provision of the new health care law, one that prohibits employers from providing better health benefits to top executives than to other employees.

  Tax officials said they would not enforce the provision this year because they had yet to issue regulations for employers to follow.

  The Affordable Care Act, adopted nearly four years ago, says employer-sponsored health plans must not discriminate “in favor of highly compensated individuals” with respect to either eligibility or benefits. The government provides a substantial tax break for employer-sponsored insurance, and, as a matter of equity and fairness, lawmakers said employers should not provide more generous coverage to a select group of high-paid employees.

  But translating that goal into reality has proved difficult.

  Officials at the Internal Revenue Service said they were wrestling with complicated questions like how to measure the value of employee health benefits, how to define “highly compensated” and what exactly constitutes discrimination.”

The Old Grey Lady has more

Serious New Questions on Obama Labor Nominee

” Perez has faced questions about his misleading congressional testimony about his involvement in a quid pro quo deal with the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, that resulted in the dismissal of a Supreme Court case and taxpayers giving up a claim worth almost $200 million. He has refused to turn over private emails that he used to conduct Justice Department business and has refused to testify before the House despite a congressional subpoena. But apparently, that’s not all.

  Now, David Weber, a lawyer representing current and former employees of the Civil Rights Division, which Perez oversaw, has sent out a press release accusing Perez of “substantial misconduct.” The employees, who are claiming whistleblower status, met with the staffs of Republican and Democratic Senators and turned over evidence of “disparate impact discrimination under the leadership of Mr. Perez.” This is significant because “disparate impact” is Perez’s favored legal theory—he has used it to pursue numerous businesses and other defendants in federal discrimination lawsuits.

 
The whistleblowers claim that Perez and his senior staff “began a widespread campaign” of discriminatory treatment against disabled employees as well as other employees “based on race; gender; age; and/or parental status.” The employees who opposed this discrimination were “subjected to an exceptionally hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation.” The whistleblowers include African-American, Hispanic, and female employees.”