Latest news with #discrimination
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
"It's Offensive": Starbucks joke leaves Hispanic customer feeling targeted
A Hispanic woman in Irving says a joke written on her Starbucks cup left her feeling targeted and unwelcome, raising concerns about cultural sensitivity and discrimination. Blanca Lopez visited the Starbucks inside a Target store in Irving on Monday with her two daughters, who had received Starbucks gift cards from school. After ordering her horchata latte, her daughters noticed a handwritten message on the lid of her cup. The message read: "What do you call a sick eagle? Illegal." Lopez said she was stunned. "And when I read it, I'm like, OK. Was I supposed to laugh or what do I need to do?" she said. Personal experience makes it painful Lopez, a Hispanic immigrant, said the joke felt especially hurtful given her recent experiences with people close to her being deported. "Why did they call me that? Why are they asking if I have papers or no papers? Why did she write this?" Lopez said. "For me, like, it's offensive." She said she immediately showed the cup to a manager. "I showed them the cup and they said, 'Oh my God, I'm so sorry. I apologize and I'm going to talk to the team so they don't do it again,'" she recalled. CBS News Texas Waiting for a response Lopez said she kept the cup as proof and is still waiting for a formal response from Starbucks. "It's basically saying that we are sick, illegal individuals that do not belong in this country," she said. Community response and protest planned Carlos Quintanilla, a Hispanic immigrant advocate with Accion America, has organized a protest outside the store for Saturday morning. "It's not just inappropriate, it's disturbing," Quintanilla said. "Especially right now when the narrative being thrown out in mass media is if you're illegal, you're a criminal, and if you're a criminal, you're illegal." Starbucks responds, Target silent Starbucks told CBS News Texas it is investigating the incident and has a zero-tolerance policy for discriminatory behavior. However, the company did not say what actions, if any, would be taken. Target did not respond to a request for comment. Lopez said she wants more than an apology. "I work as a manager. If someone on my team did something like that, I would fire her immediately," she said. She added that words matter, especially in immigrant communities already feeling vulnerable.
The Independent
7 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
Judge approves $7m settlement for men suing bar over ‘ladies' night' admission fee
A judge has given preliminary approval of a $7 million settlement in a lawsuit alleging a 'ladies' night' event at a San Diego bar discriminated against men and nonbinary people. The owners of the Omnia Nightclub, which closed in 2020 in the city's lively Gaslamp Quarter, were sued in 2020 after the plaintiffs claimed the themed night violated California's civil rights law. The plaintiffs alleged that they, along with other men and nonbinary people, were made to pay full price on entry, while women were let in for free or at discounted rates at the 'ladies' night' event. The men also alleged that they were frisked by security before entering the club but women were not. The claims in the class action date back to 2015. San Diego Superior Court Judge Matthew Braner gave preliminary approval to the settlement in May and a final fairness hearing is scheduled for August 29. The agreement does not include an admission of any wrongdoing by the defendants. California 's anti-discrimination statute, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, is at the heart of the case. The law prohibits businesses, including bars and nightclubs, from discriminating against customers based on sex, race, religion, gender identity and age. Alex Maystrenko and Steve Frye, the two named plaintiffs in the suit, will each receive $25,000 for their roles as the class representatives. There could be thousands of men who are eligible for a slice of the settlement, which, depending on the final number of claimants, could be between $245 and $4,000 each. Up to 40 percent of the settlement will likely go toward legal costs. Courts in California have previously ruled that gender-based promotions at venues violate the Unruh Act. A family-run San Francisco restaurant was forced to shut down at the end of last year because of a 'ladies' night' discrimination lawsuit. Alfred Rava, a San Diego-based attorney, has brought hundreds of other 'ladies' night' suits. Rava is representing two men who decided not to join the other members of the 2020 class action. 'I and my clients hardily disapprove of businesses treating patrons or consumers differently based solely on their sex,' Rava said.
The National
9 hours ago
- General
- The National
UAE Property: ‘Can my landlord charge a maintenance fee when I vacate?'
Question: I am writing to raise a concern regarding my recent experience with a property I vacated in the Al Jaddaf area in Dubai. When I first moved in, I submitted a security deposit of Dh4,000 ($1,089) for a unit measuring about 970 square feet. The rent was initially Dh80,000, then increased to Dh85,000, and was most recently raised to Dh93,000 following a change in building management. Due to the continuous rent increases, I decided not to renew and chose to vacate. During my two-year tenancy, the apartment experienced significant issues, such as cracks on the walls, the AC was never cleaned or serviced, the building's alarm system frequently rang at night, and the gas provider disconnected the alarm because it rang for no reason. Additionally, I personally paid to fix the shattaf and door, as maintenance requests during my tenancy were consistently ignored. Despite all this, I have now been charged more than Dh1,400 for 'maintenance' on vacating. I have asked the agent for a clear breakdown, and in response, I received unrelated images. What is more troubling is the pattern of discrimination I encountered. As a 30-year-old Somali woman, I often felt treated unfairly. There were instances where agents openly said that they do not rent to Nigerians or Sudanese, and when confronted, they deflected responsibility by blaming the landlord. I would appreciate your advice on how to escalate this matter. TA, Dubai Answer: It is common practice to give back a rented property in the manner it was given at the start of the tenancy. If it was painted and cleaned before, this would need to be done while returning the property. This will ensure your deposit will not be withheld. Some landlords describe this work as maintenance but in reality, it is just presentation. You mention a few points such as cracks appearing and that the AC was never cleaned. Unless the cracks were significant and you reported them, it is the landlord's responsibility to sort these out, but again, unless they were structural defects, these cracks would normally disappear when the apartment would be decorated. The AC cleaning would be done only if there is a contract to do so or by request from yourself and should be done at least once a year. It is not clear from your email if you complained about this. The building alarm going off is unfortunate but does not constitute a financial loss. I have reviewed the list of maintenance charges against you, but find them to be reasonable. If you do not want them to charge you, your choice would be to sort out the cleaning and painting yourself. I have not seen your tenancy agreement, but the common practice on maintenance issues is that if there is any issue below Dh500, this would be the tenant's responsibility and above this sum is on the landlord. I can only assume the shattaf and door came to less than the Dh500. Q: I want your guidance regarding a property transaction in process for a unit I am selling in Dubai. On May 15, I signed form F with a buyer, with the help of a registered broker. The contract is valid for two months from the date of signing. Before the signing of form F and payment of the 10 per cent security deposit, the buyer had obtained mortgage pre-approval. However, the initial pre-approval has lapsed and a subsequent reapplication was unsuccessful. As of June 20, the broker is working to obtain a new pre-approval through a different financial institution. As the contract is nearing expiry, will form F be at risk of breach due to the buyer's inability to secure financing so far? Also, if the transaction fails to proceed due to the buyer's financing situation, would I be eligible to claim the 10 per cent deposit or would this be subject to specific conditions or dispute resolution processes? I want to understand the correct procedures and options available to me under current regulations. KK, Dubai A: I only have the information given in your email, so I must make a few assumptions. I can only confirm your first question if there are certain clauses to confirm this in form F. Sometimes, it is mentioned that if the buyer cannot get final approval on finance for whatever reason, the deal can be considered null and void without penalties. If this clause is present, the buyer can walk away from the deal without repercussions. For your second point, the answer should be straightforward, but unfortunately it is not. Unless the buyer confirms in writing that they are in breach of the deal, you can only lay claim to the 10 per cent by filing a case at the Dubai courts. This will take time and be subject to fees. The end result should be to sell the property but sometimes, things go wrong or take a while to sort, so I would organise an addendum or extension to form F to finalise the deal. If things take too long or it is clear the buyer cannot purchase the property, only then should you seek legal recourse.
CTV News
14 hours ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Tom Mulcair: Quebec government's lack of moral compass on human rights is affecting campus life
Quebec Premier Francois Legault speaks at a news conference marking the end of the spring session at his office in Quebec City on June 6, 2025 THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jacques Boissinot Tom Mulcair is a former leader of the federal New Democratic Party of Canada between 2012 and 2017, and a columnist for A recent report by Quebec's Ministry of Higher Education has assessed reported cases of discrimination and intimidation at two of Quebec's junior colleges (CEGEPs). The inquiry focused on activities at Vanier and Dawson Colleges, taking place against the backdrop of renewed conflict in the Middle East—specifically, the war between Israel and Hamas. The report followed an investigation involving dozens of interviews with relevant stakeholders. Its goal was to determine whether campus activities raised concerns about students' physical or psychological safety. It details a litany of institutional failures in handling complaints and highlights what appears to be clear bias. It's worth noting that both colleges are anglophone. In Quebec, the most intense university protest related to the war occurred at McGill. It appears that closer linguistic and cultural ties with protests in the U.S. and the rest of Canada have heightened tensions on Quebec's English-language campuses in particular. Alarmed by reports of politicization and polarization of campus life—from lectures to student clubs to prayer rooms—Minister Pascale Déry launched an independent investigation under the direction of her department. Déry was sharply criticized by teachers' unions and some commentators for initiating the inquiry, with critics arguing it was an attack on academic freedom. Some of those unions also support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Pascale Dery Quebec Minister for higher Education Pascale Dery responds to the Opposition during question period at the legislature in Quebec City on Jan. 30, 2025 THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jacques Boissinot The BDS movement itself is highly controversial and widely regarded as central to efforts aimed at denying Israel's right to exist. Unions, like all actors in society, are entitled to freedom of expression. What's troubling is that the unions' positions appear to have influenced their responses to the inquiry. Jewish teachers who have felt targeted or discriminated against because of campus activities have told me they believe their unions failed to respond fairly—due, in part, to anti-Israel bias. The criticism aimed at Minister Déry, especially from unions, escalated quickly. While framed as a defence of academic freedom, the real impact was an attempt to intimidate the minister into abandoning the investigation. Déry, however, remained resolute. This newly released report validates her concerns. For example, it cites a planned walkout at the two colleges that urged students to protest in order 'to demand Minister Déry resign from her position, as she abuses her power as Minister of Higher Education for the Zionist agenda.' One student newspaper published a caricature that it acknowledged was anti-Semitic but refused to publish opposing viewpoints submitted by other students. The report underscores that freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are protected Charter rights. But it also makes clear that campus rules designed to ensure student safety were ignored. One key finding is that the important principle of academic freedom is being invoked in various ways—sometimes to justify actions that are otherwise indefensible. It's also significant that Minister Déry is the only Jewish member of Quebec's cabinet. The attacks on her actions quickly became pointed and personal, with repeated calls for her resignation. These criticisms came dangerously close to linking her decisions on Middle East matters to her faith. To her credit, Déry has never publicly raised that aspect. But the implication hangs heavily over this controversy. Premier François Legault has, to date, defended her. One cannot assess this situation in isolation from Quebec's openly discriminatory laws targeting religious minorities and the English-speaking community. Legault's CAQ government has not hesitated to use religion and language as political tools. It should come as no surprise that such divisive tactics at the top are now being mirrored on campus. But that is no excuse. The absence of a moral compass at the highest level of government has trickled down to institutions. In lacking a coherent approach to rights, Legault is left pleading: Do as I say, not as I do. When colleges fail to uphold and defend rights, they are just as culpable as the government. The just-released ministerial report provides a reasoned and balanced analysis of these divisive events. Still, meaningful change is far more difficult when the government itself exploits religious and linguistic differences for political gain. McGill University, student protest An encampment set up by pro-Palestinian student activists is seen on McGill University campus in Montreal on April 29, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Christinne Muschi Recently, Legault's CAQ government targeted two English-language universities, McGill and Concordia, slashing their funding and imposing new language requirements. The justification? That too much English was being heard in the streets of Montreal. (Legault's own office is literally across the street from McGill's Roddick Gates.) In a recent decision, Quebec's Superior Court dismissed that rationale, finding no evidence to support a threat to the French language. It struck down the budgetary rules that targeted the anglophone institutions. In a stunning turn, it was Minister Déry who announced that, although the government would not appeal the ruling—it would ignore it. Legault plans to reintroduce the discriminatory rules using a new pretext, now that the 'threat to French' argument has been legally discredited. Such a move is unprecedented in a democracy governed by the rule of law. Telling CEGEPs they aren't respecting rules intended to protect their communities becomes a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is meant to protect all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast. Over 40 years old, its application remains uneven across provinces. The greatest threat to its integrity is the increasing use of the 'notwithstanding clause,' which continues to erode its intended purpose. That clause—introduced as a compromise to bring hesitant provinces onboard with constitutional repatriation in 1982—allows legislatures to declare certain laws operative even if they violate Charter rights. Doug Ford's Progressive Conservative government used the clause to override Charter protections and impose back-to-work legislation on CUPE education workers. While Ford initially vowed to use it again, public backlash in Ontario led him to repeal the law. In Saskatchewan, Premier Scott Moe invoked the clause in legislation affecting LGBTQ+ students after a court struck it down. But nowhere is the clause used more freely than in Quebec. The Supreme Court has held that provinces may invoke it preemptively—even before a law is challenged in court. In fact, Quebec's Court of Appeal has ruled that courts may not even comment on whether such legislation is discriminatory. The notwithstanding clause can be used without test or justification. Emboldened by this, Premier Legault has described it as the 'parliamentary sovereignty clause'—clearly stating that elected officials, not judges, will decide what rights citizens have—or don't have. Predictably, this has created a chilling environment where even challenging discriminatory laws like Bill 21 (religion) or Bill 96 (language) is cast as an attack on Quebec itself. The same goes for the blanket invocation of 'academic freedom.' The message: nothing to see here—move along. If we've decided to discriminate, it's nobody's business. It's protected by the academic version of the notwithstanding clause. Quebec's Bill 21 targets religious minorities broadly, and Muslim women in particular. It is finally headed to the Supreme Court. Legault is already preparing to frame any ruling against it as an attack on Quebec—and by extension, an attack by the federal government. Despite the deeply troubling motives behind the law, don't count on the Supreme Court to overturn it. The Charter, riddled with exceptions, cannot easily be interpreted to say what it doesn't explicitly state. For now, the only cost of invoking the notwithstanding clause is political, not legal. That deterred Doug Ford—but not Scott Moe or François Legault. Balancing competing rights is the duty of legislatures and courts alike. The report reminds us that this same responsibility now falls on college administrators—many of whom may not have the training or experience to navigate such complex terrain. In today's world of instant images, instant reactions, and instant judgment, there's less and less space for thoughtful deliberation. When complex concepts like academic freedom are used to justify actions that generate fear among students or staff, it's time to step back. Wise, informed counsel is rare—but more necessary than ever. In her reaction to the report, Minister Dery speaks of 'very troubling facts that bring to light a series of failures that have profoundly undermined the climate on both campuses, stoked tensions and weakened the ability to live together.' She expresses her government's resolve to deal with divisive behaviour and adds that 'attending an educational institution that is healthy and safe is not a privilege, it's a right.' No one can disagree with that. Dery leaves the door open as to possible government actions and wisely invites the colleges themselves to take steps to correct the situation, failing which the government reserves the right to act in their place. This is a delicate balancing act since the report also says that in the Quebec government's view, a part of the problem is that Bill 21, that targets religious minorities, isn't fully respected on those college campuses. If living together and avoiding divisions is the goal, Quebec also has to ask itself whether it hasn't helped give rise to those very divisions with its own discriminatory actions.
Fox News
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Justice Department investigating University of California over alleged DEI-based hiring
The Justice Department has announced it is investigating the University of California (UC) for alleged Title VII discrimination violations in its hiring practices. The agency announced Thursday that its Civil Rights Division is looking into the university's individual campuses regarding potential race- and sex-based discrimination in employment practices. The university's "UC 2030 Capacity Plan" directs its campuses to hire "diverse" faculty members to meet race- and sex-based employment quotas, the Justice Department said. "These initiatives openly measure new hires by their race and sex, which potentially runs afoul of federal law," the Justice Department said in a press release. "The Civil Rights Division's Employment Litigation Section will investigate whether the University of California is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race, sex, and other protected characteristics, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said. "Public employers are bound by federal laws that prohibit racial and other employment discrimination," Dhillon said. "Institutional directives that use race- and sex-based hiring practices expose employers to legal risk under federal law." The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division wrote to the university on Thursday, informing it of the investigation. "Our investigation is based on information suggesting that the University of California may be engaged in certain employment practices that discriminate against employees, job applicants, and training program participants based on race and sex in violation of Title VII," the letter reads. "Specifically, we have reason to believe the University of California's 'UC 2030 Capacity Plan' precipitated unlawful action by the University of California and some or all its constituent campuses." UC said it will work in good faith with the Justice Department as it conducts its investigation. "The University of California is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws," a UC statement provided to Fox News Digital reads. "The University also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported." The university's UC 2030 Capacity Plan lays out a goal of becoming a national model as a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) and Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) system. The plan outlines a pipeline strategy to diversify faculty and researchers through expanded graduate enrollment and outreach to institutions that serve underrepresented students. The DOJ, however, claims these initiatives may violate Title VII by functioning as de facto employment quotas. In March, UC dropped diversity statements from its hiring practices amid President Donald Trump's threats that schools could lose federal funding. The university's provost, Katherine S. Newman, sent out a letter to the system's leaders informing them that diversity statements are no longer required for new applicants. Newman wrote that while some programs and departments have required them, the university has never had a policy of diversity statements and believes it could harm applicant evaluation. "The requirement to submit a diversity statement may lead applicants to focus on an aspect of their candidacy that is outside their expertise or prior experience," the letter obtained by Fox News Digital reads. She added that employees and applicants can still reference accomplishments related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) on their own, but requiring stand-alone diversity statements is no longer permitted.
