#anti-discrimination laws

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from a Christian college in Missouri that sued the Biden administration over its decision to shield transgender people from housing discrimination.

At issue was a 2021 memo from the Department of Housing and Urban Development that interpreted a federal anti-discrimination law as protecting transgender individuals. The College of the Ozarks claimed that the guidance conflicted with its ability to make housing assignments for students on the basis of sex assigned at birth.

"College of the Ozarks brought this challenge for one reason: The Biden administration was attempting to force them to open their dormitories to members of the opposite sex," said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Julie Marie Blake. "Though the high court chose not to review this case, we are hopeful it will soon take up related cases....College of the Ozarks will continue to follow its beliefs."

Lower courts, including the St. Louis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, sided with the Biden administration on a procedural point last year, finding that the college did not have standing to sue, in part, because the government never attempted to enforce an anti-discrimination complaint against the school.

The 2021 guidance, the Biden administration told the Supreme Court in its written response in late May, does not by itself require the school "or any other housing provider to do or refrain from doing anything." The college, the administration said, "has not alleged any past, current, or threatened enforcement."

The Biden administration's memo was the result of a significant 2020 Supreme Court decision that bars discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County focused on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which explicitly prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex and religion. A majority of the court held that sexual orientation and gender identity necessarily involve a person's sex. Because of that, they reasoned, the law prohibits LGBTQ+ discrimination.

The anti-discrimination housing provision of the Fair Housing Act uses language that is similar to what's in the workplace law, including an explicit prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex.

[alwaysbewoke]

[liberaljane]

Anti-Trans Legislation Kills

[Digital illustration of a Black trans women wearing a dress made of words describing anti-trans legislation. Bills included are, “gender-affirming care bans, insurance coverage bans, drag bans, misgendering, uneducated medical professionals, youth sports bans, book bans, dead naming, stigma, and workplace discrimination.’ Text reads, ‘anti-trans legislation kills.’]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trudy Ring at The Advocate:

The Republican-controlled U.S. House passed a bill Thursday that would require public colleges and universities to recognize and fund student religious groups even if they discriminate against LGBTQ+ people and others, drawing condemnation from the Congressional Equality Caucus and others.

House Resolution 3724, dubbed the End Woke Higher Education Act, passed on a vote of 213-201, with four Democrats joining 209 Republicans in the majority. No Republican who was present voted against it. It is unlikely to pass the Democratic-majority Senate, and President Joe Biden opposes it. So it has little chance of becoming law, but it gives Republicans a chance to flaunt their far-right credentials. The bill incorporates HR 1816, which would require public colleges and universities “to provide all rights, benefits, and privileges afforded to other student organizations — including funding, access to facilities, and official recognition — to student religious groups regardless of the group’s practices, leadership standards, or standards of conduct,” according to an Equality Caucus press release. This would mean that religious groups would be exempt from the “all-comers” policies adopted by many colleges and universities. These policies bar student groups from discriminating against LGBTQ+ students and others if they receive recognition and funding from the school; the funding usually comes from student activity fees.

The 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision Christian Legal Society v. Martinez held that public higher educational institutions could require student groups, including religious ones, seeking official recognition by the school to follow an all-comers nondiscrimination policy.

Republicans love discrimination against LGBTQ+ people: The “End Woke Higher Education Act” (HR3724).

[bright-and-burning]

really neat article i enjoyed today about polyamory with a banger of an opening line: “Too often these days I find myself in the position of defending someone I think is annoying from someone I know is dangerous.”

[nando161mando]

the CIJ-ICJ has declared that israel’s discriminatory laws and measures in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are tantamount to the crime of apartheid

[miawashere]

increase of police brutality

i realized with the death of Jaahnavi Kandula, there has been an increase of police brutality for years. and after researching, police brutality has been increasing- especially with the spark of the BLM movement. In 2021 alone, 1,145 people were reported killed by officers, according to the Guardian. after the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, it asks the question on whether or not police are more racist to people of color. it’s so sad that because of one’s skin color, you’ll be discriminated by people you’ve never even met before who’s sole job is to protect you.

[coochiequeens]

Germany. What the Hell?

By Genevieve Gluck May 30, 2024

A women-only fitness center in Erlangen, Bavaria, has been ordered by the government to pay compensation to a trans-identified male after the facility’s owner denied him permission to use the women’s showers.

Doris Lange, who has been the owner of the Lady’s First fitness studio for over three decades, received a notice from Ferda Ataman, the Independent Federal Commissioner for Anti-Discrimination, recommending “appropriate compensation” in the form of €1000 to a trans-identified male for the “personal injury suffered” at being rejected from using the women’s showers.

The incident, first reported by NIUS, occurred at the end of March, when a trans-identified male requested the use of the facilities, including the women-only showers. According to staff, the man’s identification designated him as male, and no official paperwork stating a legal sex change was presented.

However, the fitness center scheduled a training session with the man, who continued to insist on using the women’s showers. As a “compromise,” he offered to wear swimming trunks in the area where women would be present in the nude.

See rest of article

By Reduxx Team May 31, 2024

A trans-identified male is in custody on charges of manslaughter after it was reported that he fatally stabbed a Syrian security guard at a refugee shelter in Potsdam, Germany. The suspect, who is said to be from South Africa, was arrested after contacting the police to report a misgendering incident hours after he fled the crime scene.

Details are currently limited as the story is developing, but German police have confirmed that the incident took place within the Schloßgarten Hotel – a building which was converted into a shelter in 2022 and houses approximately 30 asylum seekers. At approximately 4 a.m. on May 30, a dispute broke out within the facility, culminating in a security guard being stabbed. The 33-year-old guard, who is a Syrian national, was rushed to hospital but died of his injuries.

The perpetrator fled the scene, resulting in a wide-scale manhunt conducted by the Brandenburg West Police Department. The area surrounding the shelter was closed off, and police began to search through nearby Sanssouci Park using sniffer dogs.

But just three hours after the manhunt began, the perpetrator called on the police himself to report that he had been the victim of misgendering at an Edeka supermarket in nearby Schöneberg.

Responding officers took his complaint without knowing he was connected to the manhunt in Potsdam because it is not standard practice to run the names of “victims” through police systems following a report. Had they done so, the officers would have likely seen he was wanted in Potsdam, but because they did not, the suspect was allowed to continue on his day after he lodged his complaint for the “transphobic incident.”

Some time later, authorities in Potsdam became aware of the “transphobic incident” report, which assisted them in determining the area the suspect would be in.

He was ultimately apprehended after an off-duty police officer saw him boarding a train at the Berlin Zoologischer Garten station. The public prosecutor’s office has issued manslaughter charges at this time.

See rest of article

[zvaigzdelasas]

Great classic example of the bizarre takes you feel compelled to produce when your primary lens of analysis uses the same tools as technocratic neoliberalism (ie statistics divorced from what produces the statistic)

Keep in mind while reading this, somewhere between 10-20% of the population of Mauritania are quite literally defacto chattel slaves (Kirchik seems to have accidentally forgotten to mention this)

in a remote corner of the Arab world, an elected government has suddenly bloomed. On March 25, in the rural, undeveloped, west African nation of Mauritania (population: 3,270,000), Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi, a sometime government minister, defeated rival Ahmed Ould Daddah, a prominent economist, in a runoff election for the presidency. Both sides campaigned vigorously and participated in a live, televised debate. Ould Daddah even had his own website, an impressive feat in a country where agriculture accounts for half of the population's livelihood. Election observers from the European Union, African Union, and Arab League--as well as non-profit civic groups like the U.S. government-funded National Democratic Institute--all praised the process as free and fair. Turnout for preliminary balloting on March 11 was 70 percent, and it remained high at 67 percent for the March 25 runoff. Parliamentary elections and a referendum on the country's new constitution had been held last year. All of these ballots went off without a hitch. Abdallahi was sworn in April 19 and claimed that the peaceful transition to democratic rule makes Mauritania "an undisputable model of a peaceful ending to a monolithic era." Unfortunately, coverage of this noteworthy international development has been scant.[...]

As the American journalist James Martin, who was present for the first round of balloting, wrote in the Cairo-based Al-Ahram Weekly, "Mauritania's official transition to democracy has given many hope that real reform may now become possible in the largely desert country and that its experiment in democratic rule will serve as an example to the rest of the region." Publicizing the good news out of Mauritania should be an urgent task of the State Department.

2007

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Conservatives are fuming after Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer called out Ohio and Indiana for restricting LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights in her 2023 State of the State address.

“Bigotry is bad for business,” Whitmer exclaimed while discussing the need for Michigan to expand reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws in the state.

Whitmer explained that not only is protecting these civil rights the right thing to do, but it’s also good for the economy because states lose talent when their laws are too extreme.

She then issued a direct challenge to her neighbors.

“Together, we are going to change Michigan from a state with century-old bans to forward looking protections. Our message is simple: we will fight for your freedom. And you know what? Let’s go on offense. I’ll go to any state that restricts people’s freedoms and win business and hardworking people from them. I’m looking at you, Ohio and Indiana.”

Michigan is currently experiencing a Democratic trifecta, with Democrats holding a majority in both legislative chambers and the governorship. Democrats also control the office of the Secretary of State and Attorney General. It is reportedly the first time in 40 years that Democrats control all levels of power in the state.

Ohio and Indiana have the exact opposite, with every significant office dominated by Republicans.

The Michigan GOP was not happy with Whitmer’s comments.

Republican House Rep. Andrew Beeler, told Fox2, “I think that it is remarkable that our state plan for economic development is to lure more businesses and people with the prospect of being able to kill unborn children.”

The state GOP, itself, tweeted out angrily, “No. You know who is losing talent? Michigan. Here it is again, Gretch – more people moved OUT of Michigan in 2022 than in.”

But many were quick to criticize the tweet for failing to recognize that last year, Republicans were in control of the legislature.

[thecrankiestofgremlins]

Aight imma go on a rant about employment law because that's what I'm studying and planning to put my career into. I should note this is UK law, however *some* of this shit is pretty universal. Also, obvious disclaimer, this isn't legal advice.

1. EMPLOYMENT LAW IS WRITTEN IN FAVOUR OF EMPLOYERS. THIS CAN MAKE THEM ARROGANT. UK employment law gives them a huge amount of leeway and is largely written in their favour, and they STILL regularly manage to go over the line to the point of absolute absurdity, to the point of accidentally creating beautifully complete evidence trails for employees to use in tribunal. Why do they do this? Because UK employment law is entirely enforced by individual employees and between the costs of a lawyer and the implied threat that if you take your employer to tribunal you'll never work in your field again (not universally true BTW), they assume they will never be taken to task for it. Employees are generally reluctant to take their employers to tribunal because of the above. What this means though, is if an employee *does* take them to tribunal, the evidence trail is usually extensive AS LONG AS the employee has taken steps to preserve it.

2. SAVE YOUR EMAILS. Any email sent to you by an employer regarding your employment in any way belongs to you. Send that shit to your personal email address, whether or not you think it's sketchy. For every employer. Keep your paper trail. You don't know when you might need it. This goes extra for things like performance reviews/flexible working/reasonable adjustment requests/etc.

3. NOT EVERYTHING IN YOUR CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE BY THE EMPLOYER. Employers *love* to stick exclusion clauses in or try to say that handbooks don't form part of your employment contract. They also like to do things like try to classify you as a self employed contractor when really, if you apply the relevant law, you are an employee and have the rights of an employee. Just because your contract says a thing doesn't mean it is the be all and end all. Think of it this way: if you only did what your employer required in writing in the contract, would they be pissed? If so, your contract is probably shit.

4. READ THE DAMN CONTRACT. Make sure you know the ins and outs of your job description, what's expected of you, your pay, overtime policy, where you're expected to work, etc. Just because you might not be able to negotiate it doesn't mean you shouldn't know what it says. This also goes for any employment handbooks. Know what the limits are, know what your hours are, know what your benefits are. Chances are good the employer will ask you to go above and beyond them, or try to pretend you don't have a contractual right to something when you absolutely do. Also, you *can* negotiate on more than you think. For example: employers are not allowed to make deductions from your pay beyond PAYE and National Insurance, UNLESS they have been contractually agreed beforehand. Check to see if they're trying to add a bunch of extra permitted deductions and *challenge* that shit if you feel able to. (My favourite is requiring supposed independent contractors to pay for a uniform. Highly unlikely that you're actually an independent contractor at that point plus fuck you if you want to control what I wear pay for it your damn self).

5. DO NOT OPT OUT OF NATIONAL WORKING TIME REGULATIONS. This is a pretty standard extra inclusion in most people's employment contracts in the UK. It shows up as an extra page of the contract with a separate signing line because they're not allowed to include that requirement as a contractual obligation (in most cases: the big exception is emergency workers) National Working Time Regs limit the amount of hours an employer can require from an adult (over 18) employee to 48 hrs on average, that average being taken over a period of 17 weeks. However, employees can opt out of this, hence the extra piece of paper. The employer cannot dock your salary/terminate your employment/treat you in any negative way if you do not sign this piece of paper. They include it with the contract so that people *assume* they have to sign it. If you're employed and have already signed it, you can opt back in by notifying your employer in writing. Generally this will mean a 3 month period before the regs apply to you again. But *do it*.

6. IF YOUR HOURS ARE VARIABLE, KEEP TRACK OF THEM INDEPENDENTLY. If you don't have a 9-5 contract, this applies to you. This is to make sure that if there's a dispute, you have a record that *you* made of those hours. Ya know, in case the employer decides to conveniently forget about them. I watched OXFORD UNIVERSITY try this shit in a tribunal and they got absolutely wasted because a) it was so obvious (they'd deleted hours spent on marking) and b) the employees had kept an independent record.

7. IF YOUR EMPLOYER DOES SOMETHING SHITTY, YOU HAVE 3 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THAT SHITTY THING TO SUE THEM FOR IT. It's one of the shortest time limits in UK law (remember when I said the law is written in employers' favour?), and that time is *only* paused when you involve ACAS (I'll explain ACAS in a sec) and the timer starts again once ACAS issues their certificate. It does NOT stop if you're trying to resolve the issue through internal grievance processes, and attempting to resolve the issue internally is not an acceptable argument if you're trying to extend that time (which you can, under specific circumstances, but try not to rely on that bc it's iffy at best) (yes you can also argue that there have been continuing acts but at that point you need to talk to a lawyer because there are specific rules around that too). There are. So many cases. That I've come across personally. That would be an absolute slam dunk EXCEPT they're out of time.

8. IF YOU WANT TO SUE YOUR EMPLOYER YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH ACAS FIRST. Employment law is the only area of law where you are legally required to try to do mediation first. How much you engage with the mediation is up to you, however the more you do, the better it looks. Mediation does not mean you have to agree with the employer! It just means you get to ask them the questions you want to ask them in official channels. That said, if they roll over and give you what you want during these negotiations, you kind of have to take it: English law says that civil courts can only give you money as a remedy. As much as you might want to have your day in court, civil courts are legally only for getting money out of people, not primarily for the public administration of justice. Yes I hate this too. If you don't take it, the court won't like it and there is a potential that the court *could* award your employer their costs. ACAS can also give you help explaining how the process works etc. Make sure you contact them and start the process ASAP as soon as you decide the thing is worth suing over.

9. READ THE EQUALITY ACT 2010. There are 9 protected characteristics under UK law: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Broadly speaking, your employer cannot treat you negatively because of any of these characteristics. There are qualifications and limits to how far this goes, obviously, but broadly speaking, this is the case. I'll do another post later going into some of this in more detail because the topic is huge but taking a look at the sections that may apply to you is a good start.

10. NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD A LAWYER OUTRIGHT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOURE OUT OF OPTIONS. First, you *can* represent yourself. It's not an option I'd suggest before you've exhausted all your other options but it is possible. The issue is that you probably don't speak legalese or have access to legal databases, but there is still research you can do on Google. Don't trust everything you read though. Law firm websites are a good place to start, as they tend to write decent articles on the basics of a given issue and they can point you towards some case law. You can also call Citizens Advice for a jumping off point. If you're representing yourself though, the only things you can really reference in court are a) legislation, b) case law, and c) practitioners texts. Remember, case law explains how legislation actually works: it doesn't apply to every situation you might think is covered by it.

Second, most solicitors firms offer free 15-30 minute consultations, where you go in, give them the basics of the situation, and they give you some advice and can signpost you to somewhere you can get more information. This can be really, really helpful and I'd suggest it even if you're planning on repping yourself.

Third, a lot of firms also offer something called a no-win-no-fee agreement, which is about what it says on the tin: if you don't win, you don't pay. Each firm will have different stipulations regarding these, so you should ask what these are. The problem though, is if the firm doesn't think you have a winnable case, they are unlikely take it on that basis (because that means they don't get paid and that's a lot of work not to get paid for). If you do win, they generally take a piece of your winnings as payment (so sometimes they won't do it because you're not claiming enough). It's not a guarantee, but IMHO it's a good option if you have a good case.

Last, there are the pro bono organisations. A lot of places will have a regional pro bono law clinic. These may or may not be able to take your case all the way to tribunal, but if not they should be able to refer you to an org that can. London and its immediate surrounding area has the Free Representation Unit, for example (your case has to be referred to them by another org, usually one of the clinics) but if they can take up your case, they can take it all the way to tribunal and even appeals. Since Legal Aid isn't a thing in employment law (except for discrimination), a lot of these organisations have an absolutely fucking massive caseload though, so there isn't a guarantee that they'll be able to take your case.

I'm sure I'll think of more to add to this later, but this is just the bare bones basic shit that *everyone* should know. A lot of cases don't get brought because people don't know that they a) have rights, b) they don't hold onto documents, c) they don't start the claim in time, or d) all of the above. Given that employment law is only enforceable by the individual, the only way to get employers to play by the rules more often is if people start enforcing it. It's a shit way to do it, but it's what we've got at the moment.

If people find this useful and would like this to be a regular thing, lmk.

[menalez]

The bbc article on the history of pride said something like ‘recently there has been more focus on trans rights’ like yeah don’t we fucking know it

oh if only we could forget just for a second

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

The far-right extremist group Moms for Liberty on Friday asked a federal judge in Kansas to dramatically expand an order blocking the Biden administration’s new rule aimed at protecting LGBTQ students — seeking to nationalize an injunction issued July 2. Moms for Liberty asked U.S. District Judge John Broomes, a Trump appointee, to expand his preliminary injunction against the administration’s new rule under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 to cover more than 850 counties across the country — including all 25 of the most heavily populated counties in the nation and all 10 of the largest school districts in the nation. If the group’s request is granted, the Kansas-based injunction — covered previously at Law Dork — would effectively become a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of the rule before it is set to go into effect August 1.

The final rule, issued earlier this year, interprets sex under Title IX’s nondiscrimination protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity and changes obligations for addressing sexual harassment complaints, among other elements. Although the preliminary injunction issued by Broomes on July 2 covered four Republican-led states — Alaska, Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming — it also covered members of three organizations that were a part of the lawsuit, including, Broomes wrote, “the schools attended by the children of the members of Moms for Liberty.”

Broomes asked the groups — which also include the “members of Young America’s Foundation or Female Athletes United” — to submit their lists of applicable schools by Monday. This was a step that I questioned in my report last week due to the fact that Broomes had issued an injunction before he even knew what it covered. Ten days later, Moms for Liberty proved my point.

In Friday’s filing, Moms for Liberty did not list the schools attended by the children of their members. The group acknowledged that they don’t even know the answer to that question. Citing the “impracticality” of obtaining that information, the group instead asked Broomes to expand the scope of the injunction substantially to include “any K-12 school in any county in which the child of a member of Moms for Liberty resides.” Moms for Liberty then claimed that it has more than 130,000 members, and provided a list of more than 850 counties in which it claims it has members.

The filing noted that the Justice Department opposes this request and will file its opposition by Sunday. If granted, the injunction out of Kansas would block enforcement of the rule in all of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, D.C., Detroit, and several other jurisdictions where local and state officials are not seeking such relief — and were not made aware of the fact that their obligations were at issue in the case before Friday. Moms for Liberty’s claim is that if it has one member who has a child attending a school in Los Angeles Unified School District, the entire district and its more than 1,300 schools should be covered by the injunction issued by a federal district judge in Kansas — regardless of the law affecting such legal questions in California.

Anti-LGBTQ+ extremist “parental rights” organization Moms For Liberty seeks to block the expansion of Title IX protections for LGBTQ+ people to over 850+ counties in America that would be a de facto nationwide injunction in Kansas v. Department of Education, meaning that a single M4L member in a county could be subjected to an injunction regardless of local laws.

[nando161mando]

A Black man got a job interview after he changed the name on his resume. Now, he’s suing for discrimination