Latest news with #employmentDiscrimination
New York Times
27-06-2025
- Business
- New York Times
How Trump Upended 60 Years of Civil Rights in Two Months
Last year, a little-known office in the U.S. Department of Labor helped Black workers at a Texas medical center recover $900,000 in back wages, and Black workers at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in Illinois recover $800,000, each time over allegations that those applicants lost out on jobs because of their race. Called the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, this division investigates and fights employment discrimination for one-fifth of the U.S. labor force. It was created in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an executive order strengthening the provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned racial discrimination by employers. The O.F.C.C.P. specifically enforced the law among businesses and institutions that contracted with the government or received federal funds. The landmark law also banned segregation and discrimination in all public places, including schools, libraries, restaurants and buses. For more than 60 years, the executive order helped many thousands of workers who had endured discrimination. Yet despite the law, research shows that Black Americans continue to face pervasive employment discrimination at a rate that has not declined since the late 1980s. On his second day in office, President Donald Trump labeled O.F.C.C.P.'s efforts to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act illegal and discriminatory — presumably against white people. He signed his own executive order revoking Johnson's on behalf of, as he put it, 'hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American dream.' Within the week, Trump's acting secretary of labor ordered the O.F.C.C.P. to 'immediately cease and desist all investigative and enforcement activity' and close all open cases. A few weeks later, O.F.C.C.P.'s acting director proposed slashing its staff by 90 percent. In fewer than two months, six decades of civil rights enforcement was essentially dead. Trump has justified these actions by claiming he is rooting out racial discrimination disguised as 'diversity, equity and inclusion.' Indeed, the other federal agency charged with investigating employment discrimination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, recently created a page on its website dedicated to helping white Americans file complaints based on being victimized by diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CBS News
20-06-2025
- Health
- CBS News
Firefighter forced to retire early due to Parkinson's cannot sue Florida city for health benefits discrimination, U.S. Supreme Court rules
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled against a firefighter who retired early because of Parkinson's disease and alleged the city of Sanford violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by limiting a health-insurance subsidy. Justices upheld a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the lawsuit filed by Karyn Stanley, a fire-department lieutenant who retired in 2018 at age 47 because of the effects of the disease. The dispute stemmed from Stanley losing a health-insurance subsidy two years after she retired and involved questions about whether the city violated part of the Americans with Disabilities Act aimed at preventing discrimination in employment. Friday's main opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, focused heavily on wording in the law that bars discrimination against a "qualified individual on the basis of disability." The opinion said the definition of a "qualified individual" in what is known as Title I of the law applied only to current employees or people seeking jobs. Gorsuch wrote that the law "protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination." But Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote a blistering dissent, arguing the law "says nothing — zero — about the preemployment or postemployment timing of an act of disability discrimination." "Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination," she wrote. "Congress plainly protected their right to do so when it crafted Title I. Yet, the Court ignores that right today." A civil servant demanding better post-retirement health benefits Stanley began working as a firefighter for the city in 1999 but was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2016. When Stanley was hired in 1999, the city provided health-insurance subsidies up to age 65 for firefighters who retired after 25 years of service or who retired because of disabilities, according to court documents. The city changed the policy in 2003 to scale back the benefit to two years for employees who retired early because of disabilities. As a result, Stanley received the subsidy for two years after she retired, rather than up to age 65. A brief filed in the case said the end of the subsidy resulted in Stanley facing an additional $1,000 a month in health-insurance costs. Stanley challenged the city in court, but a U.S. district judge dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, saying Stanley, as a former employee, could not sue under Title I of the law. The Biden administration and organizations such as the AFL-CIO, the International Association of Fire Fighters and AARP filed briefs at the Supreme Court backing Stanley. Meanwhile, groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities supported Sanford in briefs. Gorsuch was joined Friday in parts of his opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. He was joined in another part by Alito, Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor joined part of Jackson's dissent.
The Guardian
18-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
UK firm not racist for rejecting Chinese applicant over security concerns, tribunal rules
Refusing to give a job to Chinese and Russian people in companies that deal with issues of national security and require security clearance is not racist, an employment tribunal has ruled. It is not discriminatory to stop people from 'hostile' states taking up certain jobs in the defence sector because of the risk to British security, the judgment says. The ruling relates to the case of a Chinese scientist who accused a British AI company with ties to the UK and US defence departments of racism after she was not given a job because of security concerns. Tianlin Xu applied for a role at Binary AI Ltd but the founder of the software company, James Patrick-Evans, turned her down and employed a British man instead. He emailed her: 'Disappointingly I've come to the decision not to proceed with your application on the sole basis of your nationality. 'As a company, we work closely in sensitive areas with western governments and wish to continue to do so. We're simply not big enough of a company to ensure the separation and security controls needed to hire someone of your nationality at this stage.' Judge Baty, sitting in London, described the email as clumsy and said: 'In complete isolation, it looks like an admission of direct race discrimination on the basis of nationality.' But he said in fact Xu had been turned down as she would not get security clearance because of her nationality. The judge said: 'That reason would apply to people of any nationality where it was not possible to get security clearance (including Russian, North Korean and Iranian nationality as well as Chinese nationality). The reason is not nationality per se.' Patrick-Evans was 'strongly advised against hiring a Chinese national' by defence officials that he worked with, the tribunal heard. Binary AI had had a contract with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory – the secret site based at Porton Down in Wiltshire – and the Ministry of Defence to develop AI that could identify hidden 'back doors' inside software. Baty said in his judgment: 'It is obvious that software drives the modern world. It underpins our everyday lives and runs every sector of our state. 'Therefore, it is paramount that the security and operational capability of the software that drives our everyday lives should remain intact and free from malicious hackers and state actors wanting to persuade political outcomes or obtain sensitive information.' Xu's complaints of direct and indirect race discrimination both failed.
Bloomberg
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
‘Reverse Discrimination' Ruling Is a Win for the Rule of Law
White individuals and straight people do not need to meet a higher burden of proof than members of minority groups to prevail in employment discrimination suits, the Supreme Court held Thursday. The immediate effect is to make so-called 'reverse discrimination' claims easier to bring. However, the decision also solidifies the existing legal framework for workplace discrimination — a framework that the court's ultra-conservative justices would like to upend. The result is not so much a win for conservatives or liberals as for legal stability. The case, Ames v. Ohio, arose when a straight White woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services applied for a management position, which instead went to a lesbian candidate. She was subsequently demoted, and her old job was given to a gay man. Ames sued, alleging these decisions amounted to employment discrimination.
Fox News
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump-appointed federal judge rules against Biden-era sex-based employment discrimination guidance
A Trump-appointed federal judge slapped down portions of Biden-era Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance that claims Title VII protections against sex-based employment discrimination include the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity. The ruling, signed by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northwestern District of Texas, declares that language in the guidance that defines "sex" in Title VII as encompassing sexual orientation and gender identity is "contrary to law." The ruling declares the same regarding "all language defining 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' as a protected class." "Sex-based discrimination under Title VII includes employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity," part of the EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace reads. "Accordingly, sex-based harassment includes harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed." The guidance notes that, "The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law, are not meant to bind the public in any way, and do not obviate the need for the EEOC and its staff to consider the facts of each case and applicable legal principles when exercising their enforcement discretion." The ruling comes in a legal challenge lodged by the Heritage Foundation — a conservative D.C. think tank — and the state of Texas. "The Biden EEOC tried to compel businesses – and the American people – to deny basic biological truth," Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America, said in a statement, noting that "thanks to the great state of Texas and the work of my Heritage colleagues, a federal judge said: not so fast. READ THE JUDGE'S ORDER – APP USERS, CLICK HERE: "This ruling is more than a legal victory. It's a cultural one," he added. "It says no – you don't have to surrender common sense at the altar of leftist ideology. You don't have to pretend men are women. And you don't have to lie to keep your job. Heritage is doing exactly what the conservative movement needs to do: stop apologizing, start suing, and take back institutions." The White House called it a "major win for women and commonsense." The judge "confirmed what the Trump Administration consistently maintains: government-imposed DEI policies requiring bathroom, dress, and pronoun accommodations are illegal," White House spokesman Harrison Fields told Fox News Digital. On Inauguration Day earlier this year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring it U.S. policy "to recognize two sexes, male and female." That order called for rescinding guidance documents, or portions of documents, that clash with the order. The EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace was specifically mentioned in the order. However, after Trump issued the order, EEOC Commissioners Charlotte Burrows, Jocelyn Samuels and Kalpana Kotagal said in a joint statement that "like all workers, LGBTQI+ workers — including transgender workers — are protected by federal law and entitled to the full measure of America's promise of equal opportunity in the workplace." Samuels and Burrows later said in January they had been informed by the White House that Trump was removing them from their roles as EEOC commissioners. The EEOC notes on its website that it needs a quorum to vote on rescinding guidance documents. "As of January 28, 2025, the EEOC no longer has a quorum of its bipartisan leadership panel of Commissioners, following the departures of two Commissioners. The Commission panel currently is comprised of Republican Acting Chair Andrea Lucas (designated as Acting Chair by President Trump on January 20, 2025) and Democrat Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal," the website explains. The Texas attorney general's office and the EEOC did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Fox News Digital on Friday.
