Latest news with #ETIENNELAURENT
Newsweek
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Federal Workers Took an Oath. Now We're Taking a Stand Against ICE
Federal buildings are supposed to be pillars of justice—places where the Constitution is upheld and the public is served. Today, they are being turned into sites of humanitarian crisis, fear, and secrecy. As federal workers, we took an oath—not to a party or a president, but to the Constitution. That oath demands we uphold the rule of law, defend human dignity, and protect the public good. The Trump administration is using federal agencies and public services to target immigrants, union leaders, and entire communities. We refuse to be silent. Federal workers in New York City, Chicago, and Seattle are taking bold action on Wednesday, June 25, to say: Our workplaces are not jails. We serve the public—not political agendas. We know our oath. Now we're taking a stand. Federal buildings—meant to serve the public, uphold justice, and safeguard rights—are being turned into lawless arenas where immigrants are harmed, detained without transparency, and stripped of their basic human rights. In Los Angeles this took the form of a three-year-old being held in a basement for 48 hours with only a bag of chips, a box of animal crackers, and a mini carton of milk as rations for each day. As for water? One bottle, shared amongst an entire family of five each day in stifling heat. Even members of Congress have been blocked from entering the buildings to conduct oversight and address these atrocities. It is an offense to the values we swore to uphold. It is an offense to the people federal workers serve. And it is an offense to the Constitution itself. It is also part of a broad and menacing trend. A demonstrator holds up a sign as they protest in front of the main entrance of Dodger Stadium to call for a boycott of the team, claiming the organization supports federal immigration efforts, in Los... A demonstrator holds up a sign as they protest in front of the main entrance of Dodger Stadium to call for a boycott of the team, claiming the organization supports federal immigration efforts, in Los Angeles, on June 19, 2025. More ETIENNE LAURENT / AFP/Getty Images The arrest of labor leader David Huerta outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles and the recent arrest of mayoral candidate Brad Lander at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in New York City, the aggressive federal raids against immigrant communities, the continued use of public facilities to detain families in inhumane conditions—these are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of an administration weaponizing the federal government against the very people it is meant to protect. These acts of cruelty are part of a coordinated agenda that started with the attacks on federal workers led by Trump allies like Russ Vought and billionaires like Elon Musk. These powerful figures seek to hollow out the federal government, discredit its workforce, and replace a democratic administrative state with a machinery of personal loyalty, abuse, and private enrichment. The anti-immigrant agenda and the attack on federal workers are both designed to dehumanize, divide, and distract. Immigrants are scapegoated to justify authoritarian crackdowns. Federal workers who resist or blow the whistle are demonized as part of a so-called "deep state." The result is a chilling feedback loop in which the government is turned against its own people—both those it serves and those who serve within it. This is why federal workers are speaking out. They are reclaiming their role as caretakers of the public trust and know they must take back their workplaces. They are saying: Not in our name. Not in our buildings. Not with our labor. We know the price of silence. History tells us that the erosion of democracy begins not with a bang, but with the quiet normalization of abuse—where violence is rationalized as "procedure," where rights are discarded due to "exceptions," where cruelty is described as "necessary enforcement." But federal workers are not here to normalize harm. We are here to raise the alarm. Federal workers chose public service because we believe in something bigger than ourselves: a government that serves all people, not just the wealthy, not just the powerful, not just the politically connected. This administration has betrayed that mission. As former federal workers we know that our former co-workers are not the "deep state." They are the real state—the people who keep this country running, who serve the people, who hold the line when democracy is under siege. We are standing up because we believe that public service is still noble. That government can still be just. That our federal workplaces can still reflect our highest values. We took an oath. Now we are taking a stand. Alissa Tafti is a federal union leader, economist, and Co-Executive Director of the Federal Unionist Network, a worker-led effort to defend democracy and transform the federal government from within. Chris Dols served as cost engineer and value officer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in New York where he was elected President of IFPTE Local 98. Chris is a founding organizer of the Federal Unionists Network, which has organized mass actions to defend federal workers' rights across the country. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
New York Post
23-06-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Former In-N-Out worker claims his natural hair got him fired
A former African-American In-N-Out employee is suing the company for discrimination and termination for his natural hair, according to court documents. Per the court documents, the former employee, Elijah Obeng, a California native, claims that he was discriminated against and terminated for his natural hair and texture. In the suit, Obeng claims he suffered emotional distress, reputational harm and loss of employment. Obeng is seeking $3 million in damages and $200,000 in earnings he would have made during the duration of his firing and beyond. In-N-Out declined to comment to Fox Business as they do not comment on ongoing litigation. Obeng and his lawyer have yet to respond to initial requests for comment from Fox Business. 4 In the suit, Obeng claims he suffered emotional distress, reputational harm and loss of employment. Los Angeles Times via Getty Images According to the court documents, Obeng worked at the West Coast fast-food burger chain from his high school graduation in 2020 up until his termination in 2024. According to the court documents, Obeng went to work with his natural hair, following the guidelines of In-N-Out's grooming and uniform policy. That policy is defined in the court documents as clean-shaven and hair kept under a hat. 4 Obeng is seeking $3 million in damages and $200,000 in earnings he would have made during the duration of his firing and beyond. ETIENNE LAURENT/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock As Obeng's hair grew longer, he was instructed to either cut his hair or alter it to follow the uniform policies. The court documents say that Obeng then braided his hair to follow guidelines, but was told by management that his sideburns, which were part of his hair, needed to be cut. Obeng claimed to have found that request humiliating and discriminatory, according to the court documents. 4 According to the court documents, Obeng went to work with his natural hair, following the guidelines of In-N-Out's grooming and uniform policy. JishPhoto/Shutterstock Obeng claims he began receiving different treatment, such as being reprimanded for minor infractions, while other employees were not receiving the same. He also claimed that he was scrutinized more harshly and was denied any chance for promotion or career advancement. Some time near May 25, 2025, court documents say that Obeng was sent home to shave his sideburns, making him feel publicly humiliated since he received disciplinary action in front of other employees. 4 He also claimed that he was scrutinized more harshly and was denied any chance for promotion or career advancement. ETIENNE LAURENT/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Obeng never returned to I-N-Out since a requirement to return was shaving his sideburns. Obeng was fired a few days later due to what the company claimed was from prior write-ups, but Obeng claims it was because of his 'ancestry, color and race, including his natural hairstyle and hair texture,' the court documents state. Obeng and his lawyer claim that In-N-Out went against the CROWN Act, which protects employees from race-based hair discrimination. The CROWN Act is an official law in 27 states, including California.
Toronto Sun
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests Photo by ETIENNE LAURENT / AFP via Getty Images Article content President Donald Trump has deployed at least 300 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Advertisement 2 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account or Sign in without password View more offers Article content Trump initially said he was deploying 2,000 troops. Article content tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests Back to video tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Play Video Article content It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C., to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Advertisement 3 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content Here are some things to know about the guard's deployment Sunday and conditions under which the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Tense moments after National Guard arrives Guard members arrived to specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention center where protesters concentrated. They stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted 'shame' and 'go home.' After some closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. Your Midday Sun Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. There was an error, please provide a valid email address. Sign Up By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Thanks for signing up! A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Your Midday Sun will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Article content Advertisement 4 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. He federalized part of California's National Guard under what is known as Title 10 authority, which places him, not the governor, atop the chain of command, according to Newsom's office. Advertisement 5 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Advertisement 6 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content Photo by RINGO CHIU / AFP via Getty Images The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. Advertisement 7 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Play Video Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. Advertisement 8 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil On Sunday, Trump was asked if he plans to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles and he said, 'We're gonna have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden.' Trump didn't elaborate. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis _ an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. Article content Share this article in your social network Read Next
