START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

The Supreme Court Has Severely Limited Workers' Ability to Sue Employers for Discrimination


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: corporate, corruption, americans, employers, ALEC, ethics, labor, money )

Nancy
- 276 days ago - prwatch.org
In the midst of landmark opinions on the Voting Rights Act, affirmative action, and marriage equality, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a pair of barely-noticed decisions that will severely limit workers' ability to seek justice if they are victims of-



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Gene Jacobson (233)
Thursday July 18, 2013, 8:03 am
"Collectively these two decisions erode protections for workers enumerated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The original purpose of Title VII was to prevent employers from abusing their power and to require them to take responsibility for discrimination occurring in their workplace, but these rulings overturn decades of anti-discrimination protections, making it harder for those facing racial, gender, or religious harassment to achieve justice."

These consistent 5-4 decisions do NOT make good law. They exemplify the divide in the country between the haves and have nots. Ideally, an honest court would have 9-0 to 7-2 decisions reflecting the will of the people and applying constitutional principles consistently. That they cannot agree on virtually anything means only that ideology NOT reason nor principle is guiding THIS court's decisions. If this means anything for progressives it is two fold, first NEVER confirm a justice based on what he/she says during confirmation hearings alone, look to their record for that is where you'll find the truth, never compromise your principles on a quid pro quo basis - that is how Alito and Roberts got their seats and that was a huge mistake. Second, progressives must do everything in their power to take a 2/3's majority in the Senate and keep the White House until this current crop of fools can be replaced. They are holding our nation hostage to their conservative ideology and what they do is not who we are as poll after poll demonstrates.

SCOTUS has us acting as if we were 1930's Germany and those are NOT the values of a majority of Americans, they are the values of a rapidly dwindling segment of Americans, the white and wealthy. We must hold the ability to replace these with people who reflect the values of our nation, not the dying republican party. I would support a constitutional amendment limiting their terms to a mandatory retirement of age of 70. I do not believe our founders ever intended 9 people to have the ability to run our government, they did want them to not be subject to political winds, but these are, and a mandatory retirement age would help rectify that.
 

. (0)
Thursday July 18, 2013, 12:43 pm
Saddening, that a law which started out with the thought of protecting citizens against bias, discrimination of any kind always becomes convoluted throughout the years and moves away from it's original agenda.
If I could send you another star Gene, I would........:)
 

Mitchell D. (123)
Thursday July 18, 2013, 7:20 pm
Yes, Gene, 1930's Germany. I could not have put it more succinctly!
We are still paying the price for electing Saint Reagan, and then Bubba...or, maybe we never actually elected Bubba.
 

GGmaSheila D. (89)
Thursday July 18, 2013, 7:50 pm
To Gene - couldn't give you a second green star, tho you earned it. I agree about the term limits. It's about time terms were limited in Congress also. In a perfect world we wouldn't have a two party sytem, it's too easy for one party to ride rough shod over the country, as we are finding out.

As for the decisions - not a bit surprised since we have a Republican Supreme Court.
 

Patricia H. (470)
Friday July 19, 2013, 3:22 am
noted
 

Dorothy N. (63)
Saturday July 20, 2013, 6:50 am
I'm very much afraid that any positive rulings coming from that Supreme Corporation were meant only as distractions from rulings further intended to drag America and Americans to a place their Founders tried very hard to protect them from...
 

Teresa Cowley (272)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 3:49 am
Thank you, Gene, for sharing your vast knowledge--I could, and did, send a well-earned green star.
I certainly agree that there needs to be term limits on all political figures.
I also agree that I think the Supreme Court "gave" Americans a (relatively) minor win or two, and then lowered the boom on the more political items.
It will be interesting to see what happens with ObamaCare--I was rather mystified when Roberts voted for it.
Thanks Nancy.
 

Alllan Yorkowitz (462)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 9:07 am
I can't find the words, except to say this simply outrageous.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Nancy C.

Nancy C.
Nancy's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 64
Stories submitted: 2812
Front Page stories: 2200




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.