https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/ibm-diversity-efforts-targeted-by-stephen-millers-legal-group
6 replies (most recent on top)
No surprise here. So hoping that the AFL wins this lawsuit.
https://1792exchange.com/pdf/?c_id=813
Why do we always periodically get the question from some posters, ‘What does this have to do with layoffs?’ I am getting sick of seeing this question. Look at the other The Layoff.com sites and you will see that the discussions often go beyond layoffs. However I would maintain all is indirectly or directly related to layoffs. When company executives make stupid strategic decisions, unethical decisions, or bad investment decisions, then ultimately it is the troops on the ground who suffer and lose their jobs. Some lose their jobs due to performance issues but it is interesting how PIPs become more frequent due to bad leadership decisions which cause the revenues to sink, cash flow to diminish, and competitors taking market share away from IBM. Trust me I went thru this with DEC and see the same warning signs with IBM
What does this have to do with layoffs?
For decades the courts maintained fighting discrimination with discrimination is perfectly justified and legal in their twisted ethics. As long as it reaches their vision of society. What makes anyone think this challenge will be any different?
this case is likely headed to the US supreme court; see gorsuch’s sffa v harvard concurrence:
he just opened the door on p.4 & p. 16 of his concurrence on Title VII challenges
… Congress chose a simple and profound rule. One holding that a recipient of federal funds may never dis- criminate based on race, color, or national origin—period.
If this exposition of Title VI sounds familiar, it should. Just next door, in Title VII, Congress made it “unlawful . . . for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individ- ual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, s-x, or national origin.” §2000e–2(a)(1). Appreciating the breadth of this provision, just three years ago this Court read its essentially identical terms the same way. See Bos- tock, 590 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 4–9). This Court has long recognized, too, that when Congress uses the same terms in the same statute, we should presume they “have the same meaning.” IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U. S. 21, 34 (2005). And that presumption surely makes sense here, for as Justice Stevens recognized years ago, “[b]oth Title VI and Title VII” codify a categorical rule of “individual equal- ity, without regard to race.”…
…. the dissent does not dispute that everything said here about the meaning of Title VI tracks this Court’s precedent in Bostock interpreting mate- rially identical language in Title VII.
The full text of the America First Legal Foundation's letter to the to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can be found here: https://aboutblaw.com/bbRO