Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
Imagine that: a discontented Gloria Allred client, in this case Debrahlee Lorenzana, who filed a pioneering “fired because I looked too hot” suit against Citicorp in 2010. (Allred is now representing a second such client, against a Manhattan lingerie shop.) “Allred told the Daily News she and her team ‘put in hundreds of hours fighting for her (Lorenzana’s) rights.’” [Fox News]
And from comments: Ted Frank defends Gloria Allred.
{ 1 comment }
A t-shirt company declined to print message shirts for the Lexington, Ky. gay rights organization, explaining that to do so would be contrary to its beliefs. The group proceeded to file a complaint with the Lexington Human Rights Commission, which says it intends to apply subpoena power and that the t-shirt printer faces fines under a city ordinance if found to have “discriminated.” [Eugene Volokh, Bruce MacQuain/QandO]
{ 7 comments }
In a much-watched (earlier) lawsuit filed on behalf of a class of up to 6,000 blacks not hired or promoted by the state government of Iowa, a judge rejected a theory that hiring and promotion were tainted by unconscious “implicit” bias. Judge Robert Blink did not find persuasive the expert testimony proffered for the plaintiff’s theories, and said plaintiffs had not identified a particular discriminatory practice responsible for their situation as required by law. He also noted that blacks appeared to fare better in the state employment process than they did in private sector hiring. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller “noted that much of the case involved blacks who were passed over for jobs after sending in applications in which they did not list their race.” [AP/NPR, Des Moines Register]
P.S. Thanks to commenter wfjag for directing our attention to this December AP dispatch with its truly wince-making example of Lead Plaintiff Fail:
The lead plaintiff in a class-action discrimination lawsuit filed by black workers against the state of Iowa is expected to plead guilty Wednesday to using her position at Iowa Workforce Development to carry out a fraud scheme in which she embezzled $43,000 in benefits meant for jobless Iowans. … Her claims have been front and center during the lengthy litigation….
{ 3 comments }
Class action lawyers are suing the government of Iowa on an theory that “subconscious” bias resulted in employment discrimination against black employees and job-seekers. “The plaintiffs — up to 6,000 African-Americans passed over for state jobs and promotions dating back to 2003 — do not say they faced overt racism or discriminatory hiring tests.” Instead, they are relying on the work of an expert witness who is the developer of something called an Implicit Associations Test meant to measure subconscious bias. The controversy invites courts to revisit some issues of statistical and indirect proof that came up, without necessarily being resolved, in the landmark Supreme Court case of Wal-Mart v. Dukes. [AP via Justin Shubow, FedSoc Blog]
{ 22 comments }
{ 7 comments }
{ 1 comment }
Bank of America keeps funding its racial-demagogy tormentors. [Investors Business Daily]
{ 2 comments }
I’ve got a new piece up at Minding the Campus, the higher education reform site, with more to say about Teresa Wagner’s lawsuit against the University of Iowa College of Law charging ideological discrimination because of her conservative beliefs. Earlier here.
{ 2 comments }
A plaintiff’s-oriented group crusading for such legislation managed to come up with only a relative handful of employer advertisements exhibiting supposed bias against the unemployed. And on scrutiny not all of those ads turned out in fact to be “exclusionary”:
For example, national recruiter Kelly Services placed the following ad in the St. Louis area: “Currently employed but lacking growth in terms of responsibilities and technical proficiencies? If so, Kelly IT Resources-St. Louis wants to talk to you!” NELP zeroed in on “currently employed,” counted it as discriminatory, and ignored the rest of the posting. Common sense dictates that marketing to the currently employed looking to advance does not signal a rejection of the unemployed.
[Michael Saltsman, Wall Street Journal, earlier here, etc.]
{ 2 comments }
“A single woman who was denied treatment by a west Michigan in vitro fertilization clinic can proceed with a lawsuit claiming unlawful discrimination, the state Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released today. The case against Grand Rapids Fertility and IVF was filed after a doctor there told Allison Moon that his clinic could not provide the service out of concern that Michigan paternity law is so vague that a child conceived by IVF and born to a single mother could successfully sue the clinic for child support.” [Dawson Bell, Detroit Free Press] The appeals court said Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which prohibits services of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of marital status among other grounds, extinguishes doctors’ common law right to decide with whom to undertake a physician-patient relationship. [Michigan Health Law Link]
{ 8 comments }
{ 2 comments }
Argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC pits the quasi-religion of employment discrimination law against organized religion of every other sort. Guess which side the Obama administration comes down on? I explain in a new op-ed at The Daily Caller. More background: Christopher Lund (Wayne State), “In Defense of the Ministerial Exception”, North Carolina Law Review/SSRN. And per Rick Garnett at NRO “Bench Memos,” the Court’s justices in their questioning yesterday did not appear friendly toward the idea of overthrowing the exception (& followup). According to the L.A. Times and other reporting, Justice Kagan described the Justice Department’s position as “amazing.” More: Marcia McCormick, Workplace Prof (linking to transcript of oral argument, PDF)(& welcome Damon Root/Reason “Hit and Run” readers).
{ 2 comments }
I joined the host on Connecticut’s WTIC Thursday morning to discuss President Obama’s proposed ban on employer discrimination against unemployed job applicants:
For more on this bad proposal, check out Charles Lane, Washington Post (“really bad idea that will probably destroy jobs in a misguided effort to save them”); Richard Epstein/Hoover (“most ghastly” element of jobs plan), Mickey Kaus (“Worst idea in the speech? …a museum-quality case of liberal legalism ignoring the economic cost of the mechanisms of liberal legalism”), Steve Chapman (“may very well have a positive impact on hiring. Just not in America”), Neil Munro, Adler/Volokh, Business Insider, Ted Frank/PoL, NYT “Room for Debate”, Dan Indiviglio/The Atlantic (“While this is a lovely political talking point, it won’t cut unemployment and could even make matters worse for jobless Americans”), Atlantic Wire, Tim Cavanaugh/Reason, Jay Goltz/NYT “You’re the Boss” (“I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.”), National Review, Kerry Picket/Washington Times (Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill.: “If it takes lawsuits to get work opportunities, then so be it”), earlier (& welcome Tim Cavanaugh/Reason “Hit and Run” readers).
{ 4 comments }
{ 3 comments }
NPR “Marketplace” via James Taranto:
AMY SCOTT: The lawsuit began after Towson University started offering an MBA — a degree students could already get a short drive away at historically Black Morgan State University. Attorney Michael Jones represents the coalition suing the state. He says federal law prohibits states from starting new programs that are already established at a nearby Historically Black College or University, or HBCU.
MICHAEL JONES: Once these programs were duplicated elsewhere, it affected the abilities of the HBCUs to be competitive in terms of attracting students regardless of race.
{ 7 comments }
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.