DEI . . You can run, but you can’t hide

[CO. Hoosier]

The Supremes handed down another 9-0 decision. This one about harm that must be shown before a discrimination case can proceed. The court ended the “substantial harm” requirement and introduced a “some harm” requirement. Kavenaugh and Gorsuch favored no harm, the fact of discrimination would be in and of itself enough for them.

This is not good for DEI. No longer can an employer discriminate in favor of a protected class and get away with it just cuz there was no tangible harm to another. Altered working conditions, if based upon race, sex etc. is not acceptable.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf

 

[dbmhoosier]

Yep.

 

[aajohn2000]

The Supremes handed down another 9-0 decision. This one about harm that must be shown before a discrimination case can proceed. The court ended the “substantial harm” requirement and introduced a “some harm” requirement. Kavenaugh and Gorsuch favored no harm, the fact of discrimination would be in and of itself enough for them.

This is not good for DEI. No longer can an employer discriminate in favor of a protected cass and get away with it just cuz there was no tangible harm to another. Altered working conditions, if based upon race, sex etc. is not acceptable.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf

The best acronym I have heard for DEI is Didn't Earn It.

 

[Bowlmania]

No longer can an employer discriminate in favor of a protected class and get away with it just cuz there was no tangible harm to another.

This is some kind of interpretation of the Muldrow decision!

You're a lawyer? Read again what you wrote and you'll understand how absurd it is. Although, on second thought, if you have no familiarity with Title VII and/or employment discrimination cases, the absurdity will probably escape you.

It was a 9-0 decision. Do you honestly believe Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson would vote to weaken Title VII and its progeny? Kagan, in fact, wrote the opinion!

Here's the crux of the decision, which involves a transfer-based Title VII claim. A Title VII plaintiff needs to show only some (and not significant) harm from an employment decision to prove employment discrimination under Title VII. Title VII plaintiffs now have a lower bar to plead and prove discrimination cases. Of course, in order to prevail, plaintiffs must still establish that the employer took the adverse employment action because of the employee's membership in a protected class.

 

[mcmurtry66]

This is some kind of interpretation of the Muldrow decision!

You're a lawyer? Read again what you wrote and you'll understand how absurd it is. Although, on second thought, if you have no familiarity with Title VII and/or employment discrimination cases, the absurdity will probably escape you.

It was a 9-0 decision. Do you honestly believe Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson would vote to weaken Title VII and its progeny? Kagan, in fact, wrote the opinion!

Here's the crux of the decision, which involves a transfer-based Title VII claim. A Title VII plaintiff needs to show only some (and not significant) harm from an employment decision to prove employment discrimination under Title VII. Title VII plaintiffs now have a lower bar to plead and prove discrimination cases. Of course, in order to prevail, plaintiffs must still establish that the employer took the adverse employment action because of the employee's membership in a protected class.

I dropped my minion off and am well into drinking heavily before the week starts so I reserve the right to amend but what am I missing? I read that tweet. This holding doesn’t deal a death blow to dei it strengthens dei by lowering the standard thereby making ee discrim lawyers hornier to take those cases as recovery is easier and so too naturally is settlement.

 

[Bowlmania]

I dropped my minion off and am well into drinking heavily before the week starts so preserve the right to amend but what am I missing? I read that tweet. This holding doesn’t deal a death blow to dei it strengthens dei by lowering the standard thereby making ee discrim lawyers hornier to take those cases as recovery is easier and so too naturally is settlement.

Any employer with at least 15 employees that doesn't, as part of their compliance protocols, provide DEI training is out of their minds.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Any employer with at least 15 employees that doesn't, as part of their compliance protocols, provide DEI training is out of their minds.

Shit states are as low as 5 or 6 with state human rights

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It was a 9-0 decision. Do you honestly believe Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson would vote to weaken Title VII and its progeny? Kagan, in fact, wrote the opinion!

Strengthening Title VII weakens the DEI foundation. I’ve posted a few times about the Title VII problems DEI faces. Now that Title VII cases are easier to bring, DEI is on even thinner ice.

 

[BradStevens]

This is some kind of interpretation of the Muldrow decision!

You're a lawyer? Read again what you wrote and you'll understand how absurd it is. Although, on second thought, if you have no familiarity with Title VII and/or employment discrimination cases, the absurdity will probably escape you.

It was a 9-0 decision. Do you honestly believe Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson would vote to weaken Title VII and its progeny? Kagan, in fact, wrote the opinion!

Here's the crux of the decision, which involves a transfer-based Title VII claim. A Title VII plaintiff needs to show only some (and not significant) harm from an employment decision to prove employment discrimination under Title VII. Title VII plaintiffs now have a lower bar to plead and prove discrimination cases. Of course, in order to prevail, plaintiffs must still establish that the employer took the adverse employment action because of the employee's membership in a protected class.

I'm guessing what CoH is driving at is that this decision will make it easier for white men to sue employers who have DEI programs that overreach for discrimination.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I'm guessing what CoH is driving at is that this decision will make it easier for white men to sue employers who have DEI programs that overreach for discrimination.

Correct. @CO. Hoosier but that doesn’t weaken dei. It just makes it easier for everyone

 

[Bowlmania]

I'm guessing what CoH is driving at is that this decision will make it easier for white men to sue employers who have DEI programs that overreach for discrimination.

Sue for what, and under what statute(s)?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Sue for what, and under what statute(s)?

Title 7 discrim

Starbucks discrimination lawsuit awarded white employee $25 million: Legal experts weigh in

Shannon Phillips received $25.6 million in damages after a six-day trial.

abcnews.go.com

Racial justice ….

 

[BradStevens]

Title 7 discrim

Starbucks discrimination lawsuit awarded white employee $25 million: Legal experts weigh in

Shannon Phillips received $25.6 million in damages after a six-day trial.

abcnews.go.com

Racial justice ….

Correct.

As Attacks on DEI Programs Continue, Employers Should Review and Revise Diversity Initiatives

The drumbeat of DEI criticism has grown louder with an increase in the number of official complaints and lawsuits being filed. There are measures that employers can take to minimize risk and shield their DEI-related policies and programs from legal challenges.

www.fosterswift.com

DEI Under Scrutiny, Part III: High Court Wades Into Questions of Whether Title VII Sex Discrimination Requires Material Harm

During recent oral arguments in a case that could shift the balance in employment discrimination cases and impact employer diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, justices for the Supreme Court of the United States struggled to get...

ogletree.com

How Does the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Rulings Affect Employer DEI Initiatives? | Advisories | Arnold & Porter

www.arnoldporter.com

 

[Bowlmania]

Title 7 discrim

Starbucks discrimination lawsuit awarded white employee $25 million: Legal experts weigh in

Shannon Phillips received $25.6 million in damages after a six-day trial.

abcnews.go.com

Racial justice ….

I still believe the greater risk for large employers is punting on DEI training, and people in protected classes in those organizations suing under Title VII.

Yes, the door has opened for reverse discrimination actions but, interestingly, in another recent NJ case where causes of action, likes Phillips v. Starbucks, included alleged violations of both Title VII and New Jersey's LAD (Law Against Discrimination), the appellate court ruled that the company's DEI initiatives did not support a reverse discrimination suit by a white employee who was fired over stupid (and arguably racially insensitive) Facebook posts. (Zack v. Integra Life Sciences). The company's DEI initiatives, said the court, were in accord with the LAD and demonstrate that "Integra values diversity and promotes an inclusive work environment."

Finally, and as one of Brad's links indicates, "there are measures that employers can take to minimize risk and shield their DEI-related policies and programs from legal challenges."

 

[mcmurtry66]

I still believe the greater risk for large employers is punting on DEI training, and people in protected classes in those organizations suing under Title VII.

Yes, the door has opened for reverse discrimination actions but, interestingly, in another recent NJ case where causes of action, likes Phillips v. Starbucks, included alleged violations of both Title VII and New Jersey's LAD (Law Against Discrimination), the appellate court ruled that the company's DEI initiatives did not support a reverse discrimination suit by a white employee who was fired over stupid (and arguably racially insensitive) Facebook posts. (Zack v. Integra Life Sciences). The company's DEI initiatives, said the court, were in accord with the LAD and demonstrate that "Integra values diversity and promotes an inclusive work environment."

It will always turn on facts, obviously, but the salient part is that this lowers the showing for everyone. So cuts both ways. Dei programs can still aid the defense

 

[BradStevens]

I still believe the greater risk for large employers is punting on DEI training, and people in protected classes in those organizations suing under Title VII.

Yes, the door has opened for reverse discrimination actions but, interestingly, in another recent NJ case where causes of action, likes Phillips v. Starbucks, included alleged violations of both Title VII and New Jersey's LAD (Law Against Discrimination), the appellate court ruled that the company's DEI initiatives did not support a reverse discrimination suit by a white employee who was fired over stupid (and arguably racially insensitive) Facebook posts. (Zack v. Integra Life Sciences). The company's DEI initiatives, said the court, were in accord with the LAD and demonstrate that "Integra values diversity and promotes an inclusive work environment."

Finally, and as one of Brad's links indicates, "there are measures that employers can take to minimize risk and shield their DEI-related policies and programs from legal challenges."

We're going to start seeing the same types of suits against schools soon.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Correct. @CO. Hoosier but that doesn’t weaken dei. It just makes it easier for everyone

Kinda true. DEI formalized reverse discrimination. Making it easier for white guys to sue will have a telling impact on DEI. This opinion will have a greater impact on reverse discrimination cases than on cases brought by a member of a protected class. The reason is that organizations are already accustomed to looking out for members of a protected class. Discrimination against white males is no longer a safe harbor.

 

[BradStevens]

Kinda true. DEI formalized reverse discrimination. Making it easier for white guys to sue will have a telling impact on DEI. This opinion will have a greater impact on reverse discrimination cases than on cases brought be a member of a protected class. The reason is that organizations are already accustomed to looking out for members of a protected class. Discrimination against white males is no longer a safe harbor.

All people, including white people, are parts of “protected classes” under Title VII. The Act protects against all discrimination based on race or color , not just POC.

By the way, rather than start another thread, I’ll put this here: “Science” showing conservativism linked to racism.

Study claims ‘racism’ drives opposition to DEI statements | The College Fix

But psychology professor questions findings.

www.thecollegefix.com

 

[CO. Hoosier]

All people, including white people, are parts of “protected classes” under Title VII.

That’s true, but not because they are white.

The link is an excellent example of how AWFUL’s think.

 

[mattndallas]

Posted a couple weeks ago, but still a great watch.

Best line in the comments: "File this under 'Guests You Won't See on CNN or MSNBC'."