Podcasts about title vii

  • 463PODCASTS
  • 848EPISODES
  • 41mAVG DURATION
  • 1WEEKLY EPISODE
  • May 16, 2026LATEST

POPULARITY

20192020202120222023202420252026


Best podcasts about title vii

Show all podcasts related to title vii

Latest podcast episodes about title vii

NBC Meet the Press
Here's the Scoop: Supreme Court Edition, Ep 2: Who gets to play school sports?

NBC Meet the Press

Play Episode Listen Later May 16, 2026 36:17


We're back with another episode of “Here's the Scoop: Supreme Court Edition.” This month, NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett is speaking with legal experts and lawyers to discuss the cases being argued this term — and the legal precedents that underpin them. Our second episode is about the transgender student athletes who are challenging laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prevent them from competing on girls' teams in school sports. The courts of appeals in each district have sided with the student athletes, but Supreme Court watchers agree that the justices are likely to uphold the bans. Former ACLU national legal director David Cole argued Bostock vs. Clayton County (2020), in which a 6-3 majority of justices established transgender people as a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination. Host Laura Jarrett talks to Cole about his client Aimee Stephens, who was fired from her job after she came out as transgender. He explains how he won over conservative justices on the high court, and why the stakes are different for the transgender athletes in these cases. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

NBC Nightly News
Here's the Scoop: Supreme Court Edition, Ep 2: Who gets to play school sports?

NBC Nightly News

Play Episode Listen Later May 16, 2026 36:17


We're back with another episode of “Here's the Scoop: Supreme Court Edition.” This month, NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett is speaking with legal experts and lawyers to discuss the cases being argued this term — and the legal precedents that underpin them. Our second episode is about the transgender student athletes who are challenging laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prevent them from competing on girls' teams in school sports. The courts of appeals in each district have sided with the student athletes, but Supreme Court watchers agree that the justices are likely to uphold the bans. Former ACLU national legal director David Cole argued Bostock vs. Clayton County (2020), in which a 6-3 majority of justices established transgender people as a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination. Host Laura Jarrett talks to Cole about his client Aimee Stephens, who was fired from her job after she came out as transgender. He explains how he won over conservative justices on the high court, and why the stakes are different for the transgender athletes in these cases. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hiring to Firing Podcast
From Punchlines to Prejudice: Confronting Antisemitism in the Workplace

Hiring to Firing Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later May 12, 2026 29:16


In this episode of Hiring to Firing, hosts Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter use a dark comic sketch from Inside Amy Schumer as a starting point for a serious conversation about antisemitism in the workplace. Joined by Andrew Goretsky, senior regional director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in Philadelphia, they unpack how antisemitic stereotypes, microaggressions, and overt hostility show up on the job, and explore recent ADL research on discrimination against Jewish and Israeli job applicants. The discussion also examines the evolving legal landscape under Title VII, the impact of AI-driven hiring tools on protected groups, and practical steps employers can take to build workplaces that are safer and more inclusive for all employees. Tune in for a thoughtful, candid look at how organizations can recognize, prevent, and respond to antisemitism at work. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Lawyer Talk Off The Record
Lorna Hajdini Sexual Harassment Lawsuit at JPMorgan Chase

Lawyer Talk Off The Record

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 30, 2026 8:31 Transcription Available


We look into the legal nuances of sexual harassment in the workplace, all sparked by a real-life lawsuit against an executive at JPMorgan.Key Topics Covered1. Unpacking the Case:A sexual harassment lawsuit has been filed against a female executive at JP Morgan—turning conventional scripts and gender stereotypes upside down. Drawing parallels with pop culture references such as Michael Crichton's "Disclosure," Steve and Troy discuss the rarity and significance of such cases, referencing the film's theme of reversing typical gender roles in harassment allegations (00:35).2. Shocking Allegations & Texts:Steve and Troy reveal some of the explicit and racially charged alleged messages central to the lawsuit—including threats linked to professional advancement (e.g., "If you don't fuck me soon I'm going to ruin you" and "If you want to be promoted to executive director, you would need to begin pleasing me") (02:35), (06:00). The speakers analyze how these could constitute harassment and complicate the workplace dynamic, especially considering the intersection of sexual and racial elements.3. The Law Explained – Title VII Protections:Steve offers a crash course in federal employment law, specifically Title VII, which underpins most sexual harassment litigation in the United States. There are two primary legal pathways:Quid Pro Quo: When someone in authority demands sexual favors in exchange for workplace benefits (or to avoid negative consequences) (04:02).Hostile Work Environment: When unwelcome sexual conduct is so severe or pervasive that it creates an intimidating or offensive workplace, impeding job performance (06:26).Both avenues seem implicated by the alleged actions in this case.4. The Human Element:What compels victims to stay or remain silent? Is it fear of retaliation, career ruin, or the belief they won't be believed? Steve and Troy dissect the very real dilemmas facing those targeted by workplace misconduct (07:24).5. What Happens Next?With the legal action freshly filed, the future is uncertain. While neither speaker practices employment law full-time, they outline possible outcomes and encourage professional legal counsel for anyone facing similar circumstances (08:03).Real Legal Analysis: Get an accessible, jargon-free breakdown of how sexual harassment law works.Gender Stereotypes & The Law: A rare look at how the legal system handles cases that don't fit the typical narrative.Pop Culture Meets Reality: Clever references to movies and historical scandals highlight broader trends and public perceptions.Empathy for All Victims: Beyond just the law, the episode respects the human cost and emotional fallout of workplace harassment.Introduction & Case Background: 00:00Discussion of Movie “Disclosure”: 00:42The Explicit Messages: 02:18Title VII Law Crash Course: 03:26Quid Pro Quo vs. Hostile Work Environment: 04:02, 06:26Emotional and Professional Barriers for Victims: 07:24If you or someone you know is experiencing harassment in the workplace, seek legal assistance. This podcast provides discussion and general information but is not a substitute for individualized legal counsel.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Behind the Lines: The Houston Lawyer Podcast
"Run the World" (of Law): Women, Work, and What's Next

Behind the Lines: The Houston Lawyer Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 29, 2026 110:51


Send us Fan MailThis episode focuses on some of the ways that law impacts the trajectories of women who want to make a difference in the world and offers practical insight and advice for women lawyers, including women lawyers with young families. Segment I: (Shifting) Priorities: Modern Sex Discrimination Claims Guest: Haley Kurisky (Jackson Lewis)Many of you have likely seen the RBG movie "On the Basis of Sex" and understand that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. In this segment, Haley Kurisky delves into that statute and discusses modern issues relating to sex discrimination claims. Segment II: Service Spotlight: Past President (X3) Laura Gibson (18 minutes)Guest: Laura Gibson (Dentons)Laura Gibson is a legend. She has been President of the Association of Women Attorneys - Houston, the Houston Bar Association, and the State Bar of Texas. Other women who strive to become leaders in the bar or community will find this discussion about Laura's service and journey inspiring. Segment III: Pumping & Pregnancy: PUMP Act and PWFA (22 minutes)Guest: Emery Richards (Cabello Hall Zinda)Pregnancy and Lactation comprise a discrete amount of time in one's life, but at times can have a profound impact professionally and perhaps result in increased stress in the workplace, or worse. Emery Richards discusses sweeping legislation related to pregnancy and lactation that is expected to change this landscape for women workers: the PUMP Act and the PWFA. Segment IV: Partner in Charge: Practical Advice for Younger Women Lawyers (18 minutes)Guest: Carter Dugan (Norton Rose Fulbright)This frank discussion with Carter Dugan, who is the Partner in Charge at Norton Rose Fulbright in Houston, provides practical tips for women lawyers relating to topics like salary negotiations, client development, and finding a good mentor and sponsor. Segment V: Coffee & Counsel: Pregnancy & Parenting (25 minutes)Guests: Anya Bolshakov (WKPZ/Weycer Kaplan), Marjan Batchelor (Mayer Brown), Brigette Dechant (BakerHostetler), and Kaitlyn Dawson (Shipley Snell)What are the practical realities of having a baby when one is also a busy attorney? Four accomplished attorneys have an informal discussion about how they handled or hope to handle various aspects of becoming a new law mom. This segment should be very helpful to any lawyer who is starting a family in the near or even distant future. For full speaker bios, visit The Houston Lawyer (hba.org/thehoustonlawyer). To read The Houston Lawyer magazine, visit The Houston Lawyer_home. For more information about the Houston Bar Association, visit Houston Bar Association (hba.org).*The views expressed in this episode do not necessarily reflect the views of The Houston Lawyer Editorial Board or the Houston Bar Association. 

Jaws of Justice Radio
THE BURN LIST: THE CONSEQUENCES OF PRIORITIZING POWER OVER PEOPLE and THE MIDWEST INNOCENCE PROJECT (MIP) IS MARKING A SIGNIFICANT MILESTONE

Jaws of Justice Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 12, 2026 51:32


Jaws of Justice Radio investigates how we can achieve justice from a system of laws deeply rooted in economic, social and political inequality.  We want to dispel misconceptions created by the news and entertainment industry, politicians and our educational system. We hope you will listen. Host Terri Wilke will speak with Julie Cruse, a writer, advocate, and former academic working to expose and dismantle abuse in higher education. Cruse has become a leading voice for survivors navigating academic systems that too often protect institutions over people. She is the founder of AcademicAbuse.com, a survivor-led platform that documents abuse of power in universities and provides resources for both faculty and students navigating trauma and seeking justice. Cruse's advocacy is grounded in the belief that academic abuse is a systemic problem tied to unchecked authority and weak enforcement of Title VII and Title IX protections. Through her work, she connects individual stories to broader labor and social justice issues, showing how abuse is allowed to persist inside institutions tasked with advancing the public good and teaching the next generation. Her book, The Burn List, A Memoir of Abuse from Home to Higher Education is based on the testimonies of survivors. It traces how academic exploitation unfolds over time and why existing reporting mechanisms so often fail.   Host Keith Brown El will speak with representatives of the Midwest Innocence Project including Executive Director Tahir Atwater, Board Member and former KC Chiefs and Pro Football Hall of Famer, Will Shields. The Midwest Innocence Project celebrates 25 years of freedom with a Faces of Innocence “Be the Light” Event on April 30th, 2026. The Midwest Innocence Project (MIP) is a not-for-profit dedicated to investigating, litigating, and exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals across five states. They are marking a significant milestone  and inviting the community to take part. On Thursday evening, April 30 (7-9 p.m.) MIP will host its Faces of Innocence: Be the Light event at the Midland Theatre, celebrating 25 years in the fight for freedom. With lives still waiting to be restored, this moment calls for action. Tickets and sponsorships are available now at themip.org under “Faces of Innocence 2026.” Faces of Innocence is MIP's signature annual fundraiser—and this year's event carries added urgency. The evening will spotlight the real impact of MIP's work: bringing innocent people home, advancing ongoing cases, and accelerating efforts to free those still wrongfully convicted. Guests will engage with immersive experiences and interactive exhibits that bring these stories to life. A Golden Ticket Raffle offers the chance to win one of three dream vacation packages, while drinks and hors d'oeuvres will be served throughout the evening. Attendees will also hear a powerful musical performance by MIP client Faye Jacobs, who was released after 26 years of incarceration; MIP continues its efforts to have her conviction overturned. Adding to the evening's significance, Pro Football Hall of Famer and former Kansas City Chiefs lineman Will Shields—a dedicated MIP Board Member—will host an exclusive Golden Hour Reception for sponsors. Held in the Midland's Chandelier Bar, this intimate pre-event gathering offers a unique opportunity to connect directly with Shields and support a cause where time truly matters. On Jaws of Justice, we examine how to find justice in our society.  Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.   https://kkfi.org/listen/

Law and Chaos
Ep 218 — Bondi, Birthright, Baldoni, and Ballroom

Law and Chaos

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 7, 2026 73:36


Pam Bondi is GTFO! But the mess she leaves will take a generation to repair.The Supreme Court paved the way to disappear Steve Bannon's conviction for contempt of Congress.Trump commands the NCAA to quit being woke. He also has thoughts about the transfer portal.MAIN SHOW:Judge Richard Leon! Preliminarily enjoins! Trump's tackyass ballroom! Administration files ridiculous appeal!Justin Baldoni is back to teach us CivPro. This time, he's largely prevailing on his motion for judgment on the pleadings, as Judge Liman dismisses ten of Blake Lively's 13 counts. Turns out, she never signed her contract, and the contract established that she was an employee, not an independent contractor. Since independent contractors can't sue for discrimination under Title VII, her harassment claims are out. And the contract had a choice of law provision that agreed to abide by California law. No contract … no automatic California law.And of course we'll break down the Supreme Court's birthright decision hearing. So many clips!SCOTUS Orders List April 6, 2026https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040626zor_5iek.pdfTrump Executive Order to De-Woke the NCAAhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/04/urgent-national-action-to-save-college-sports/National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service [Ballroom trial docket]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72028010/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-in-the-united-states-v-national/National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service [Ballroom appeal docket]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73127510/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-v-nps/Lively v. Wayfarerhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?order_by=descBlake Lively's (unsigned) Actor Loan-Out Agreement [Exhibit 263]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.964.121.pdfBirthright Citizenship SCOTUS Transcripthttps://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-365_l6gn.pdfBirthright Citizenship SCOTUS Audiohttps://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/25-365Show Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We Get Work
We get Contracting: Episode 2 — Civil Rights Compliance Opens New Path to FCA Claims

We Get Work

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 26, 2026 11:08


DOJ's Civil Rights Fraud Initiative presents new risks for government contractors, using the FCA to pursue federal fund recipients who violate Title VII, Title IX and other federal civil rights laws. Jackson Lewis Government Contracting and Compliance Group Co-leader Scott Pechaitis speaks with Principal Jeremy Schneider to explain the new link between the FCA and civil rights and provide practical steps contractors can take to reduce exposure. 

Lawyers Off the Clock with Rebecca Strauss and Sarah Willey
EEOC Withdraws Harassment Guidance: What Actually Changed?

Lawyers Off the Clock with Rebecca Strauss and Sarah Willey

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 25, 2026 20:40


In this episode, Miller Johnson employment attorneys Rebecca Strauss and Sarah Willey discuss the EEOC's recent decision to rescind its 2024 harassment guidance. They break down what this decision means (and does not mean) for employers. The 2024 guidance generated significant discussion, particularly around: Pronoun usage and hostile work environment claims Bathroom access and gender identity protections Conflicts between religious accommodation and anti-harassment protections Now that the guidance has been rescinded, many employers are asking: Does this change harassment law? Does it affect Title VII protections? Should workplace policies change? Tune in as we explore: Why Supreme Court precedent still protects sexual orientation and gender identity What "evenhanded enforcement" means under the current Commission How employers should approach harassment complaints going forward Bottom line: The law protecting employees from harassment remains in place — and enforcement remains a priority.

Employment Law This Week Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Shifts Enforcement, DOL's Non-Union Focus, and EEOC's DEI Crackdown

Employment Law This Week Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 18, 2026 4:00


What employers should know about key developments this week: •        National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Sets New Enforcement Priorities: NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey directed regional offices to prioritize the resolution of current cases over initiating new enforcement actions. •        Department of Labor (DOL) Targets Non-Union Workplaces: In an internal memo, DOL Solicitor of Labor Jonathan Berry emphasized that enforcement would focus on non-unionized environments, noting that unions were better equipped to address issues in unionized workplaces. •        Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Cracks Down on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Policies: EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas issued a warning that preference-based diversity policies may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signaled a return to systemic investigations and large-scale litigation. Download our DEI Compliance Audit Checklist: Review DEI-related employment practices. Ensure compliance with applicable federal laws. Align organizational policies with established best practices. Download Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw426 Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com - Epstein Becker Green is a national law firm focused on health care and life sciences; employment, labor, and workforce management; and litigation and business disputes. Our attorneys advise clients at every stage of their business lifecycle, delivering practical, results-driven counsel that shapes strategy, accelerates growth, and safeguards what matters most. We serve organizations of every size, from emerging startups to Fortune 100 companies, across the health care, life sciences, financial services, retail, hospitality, and technology industries, with sound legal solutions they can depend on when it counts. www.ebglaw.com  This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and #WorkforceWednesday® are registered trademarks of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. © Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.

ONME News Review
After seven-year court-battle, Black, former City of Fresno employee called an 'entitled ni**a' by former supervisor wins lawsuit, millions

ONME News Review

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 14, 2026 86:59 Transcription Available


Former City of Fresno supervisor continually harassed former Black employee, calling her racial slurs, and continually gaslighting her with other employees and supervisorsThe verdict is in after seven, long, difficult, painful years of a long court battle: Former, Black code enforcement city of Fresno code enforcement employee, La-Kebbia "Kiki" Wilson and former employee Charles Smith won their deplorable, racial discrimination and hostile-workplace environment case unanimously on Wednesday, March 11. The eight-member (four men, four women) jury awarded Smith $400,000.00 and Wilson $15 million for damages as a result of the constant terrorizing harassment and racial discrimination by her former City of Fresno supervisor, Howard Lacy over several years.. District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff granted the jury's final verdict and award amount.It was on October 22, 2019, when plaintiffs,Wilson and Smith filed a complaint in Fresno County Superior Court against the City of Fresno, and the individual defendant Howard Lacy, asserting sixteen causes of action, including: discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims under California's Fair Employment Housing Act ("FEHA"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ...

Employee Survival Guide
Employers Intentionally and Illegally Void Employee Federal Rights by Contract: Thomas v. EOTech, LLC

Employee Survival Guide

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 9, 2026 19:35 Transcription Available


Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.A single checkbox on day one can set a legal time bomb you never see coming. We trace how a standard 180‑day lawsuit clause in employment onboarding ran straight into the guardrails Congress built for workplace civil rights—and why the Fourth Circuit said you can't squeeze a 270‑day federal process into a 180‑day corporate box. Using Thomas v. EOTech, decided just days ago, we walk through the timeline math, the EEOC's role, and the reason conciliation is supposed to come before courtroom battle.We break down the two‑step structure at the core of Title VII and the ADEA: a 180–300 day charging window that flexes under cooperative federalism, followed by a 90‑day right‑to‑sue period. Then we show how a private countdown collides with that sequence, pressuring employees to “lawyer up” during conciliation and nudging the EEOC to chase the wrong cases just to beat a clock. Along the way, we dismantle the precedents EOTech leaned on, explaining why arbitration policy under the FAA and bargaining frameworks under the Railway Labor Act do not translate to the individual protections and nationwide uniformity of federal civil rights enforcement.There's a sharp turn on state law too. While the federal claims are revived, Maryland's Sicone standard allowed a shortened period in principle, and a briefing misstep doomed the state claim. We talk bargaining power, public policy, and how small choices in appellate strategy can decide big outcomes. If you've ever scrolled past HR legalese, this story will change how you read every clause—from limitations periods to other boilerplate that might already be on borrowed time.Listen for practical takeaways on timelines, documentation, and when to seek help, plus a candid look at what this ruling signals for contracts across the country. If the insights land, follow the show, share this episode with a colleague, and leave a quick review so more workers and managers learn what those checkboxes really mean. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Faith and Freedom
He Intentionally Set Up Liberty University To Undermine Its Mission

Faith and Freedom

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 4, 2026 11:00


Liberty Counsel argues that Title VII, the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect religious institutions like Liberty University. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

The Republican Professor
Individual Liberty and Separation of Powers: Brett Kavanaugh's Dissent 1, Bostock v. Clayton Co 2020

The Republican Professor

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 28, 2026 61:30


Part 11: We're using the slip opinion this time, see below for a link. Why the Court's majority is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020) (part 11 in a series) about the faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act --This continues to be a real hoot. Part 11: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We introduce Justice Kavanaugh's strong dissent (although there are a couple of issues, one kinda tacky, the other a bit more serious) grounded in the moral arc of separation of powers: to protect individual liberty. Justice Kavanaugh rightly concludes that the Court threatened individual liberty under the guise of protecting it -- a serious charge indeed -- and one I think is probably correct. We get through the bottom of his page 6 in the slip opinion of his dissent. Part 11. Today's episode begins with a Chaplain's corner: a reading from Psalm 3 in the ESV, and Streams in the Desert January 26th (Cowman Publications Lost Feliz Station Lost Angeles, Calif., non-woke original edition). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Legal Talk Network - Law News and Legal Topics
Religious Employers and Employment Law: Whose Rights?

Legal Talk Network - Law News and Legal Topics

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 23, 2026 41:49


Religious organizations and their employees fall into a murky and often-overlooked area of labor and employment law. Guests James “Jim” Paul and Michael Subit practice in employment and labor law and are versed in the world of religious employers and their workers.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act carves out some interesting exemptions in employment law regarding religion-based businesses, but some recent court rulings seem to conflict with each other. Paul and Subit join host Matt Greer to delve into what constitutes a “religious employer” and where religious beliefs and practices challenge existing employment laws. A recent appeals court ruling spells out nine questions regarding religion-based retailers, religious hospitals, and other businesses. Is it created for profit? Does it make a secular product? Do articles of incorporation state a religious purpose? All of these considerations may matter. This issue goes way beyond practicing a religion. Consider same sex marriage, certain behaviors, and reproductive rights. Hear how quickly employer and employee rights can conflict. Is a Supreme Court showdown on the horizon?  Mentioned in This Episode: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, EEOC “Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Employers in Two Recent Religious Discrimination Cases,” New York University School of Law “LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center Association,” U.S. Third Circuit Court “McMahon v. World Vision,” Ninth Circuit Court “Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown,” U.S. Ninth Circuit Court “Conway v. Mercy Hospital St. Louis,” Justia.com The ABA Labor and Employment Law Section 2026 Annual Conference is scheduled for Nov. 4-7, 2026 in Washington, DC  ABA Labor and Employment Law Section Subscribe to ABA Labor and Employment Law Podcast: https://play.megaphone.fm/jzfpgfsst3wnyevnhvs9cq Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Faith and Freedom
Liberty University Title VII Case Prepares for Oral Argument

Faith and Freedom

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 19, 2026 11:00


A male informed the university after his 90-day probationary employment period expired that he wanted to change his name to “Ellenor.” Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Victory Fellowship Church Podcast
Title: VII, Part 3: Smyrna // Jamie Nunnally

Victory Fellowship Church Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 15, 2026 48:09


What if your problems aren't crushing you but growing you? In this message, Lead Pastor Jamie Nunnally teaches us how to face suffering as he shares about Jesus's letter to the church in Smyrna.Smyrna had been destroyed in 600 BC and rebuilt by Alexander the Great around 300 BC. When this letter was written, Smyrna was the center of emperor worship in Asia Minor. Christians were seen as suspicious, unpatriotic, and disruptive because they refused to join civic rituals. Persecution wasn't occasional—it was daily life. Believers faced exclusion, job loss, harassment, slander, and even death.Revelation 2:8–9 (NLT)Suffering (thlipsis) means "affliction, tribulation, persecution"—literally, "crushing pressure." Jesus says, "I know your poverty"—extreme poverty in a rich city, caused by persecution.One of Smyrna's main exports was myrrh, a fragrant oil made by crushing the myrrh tree. In the same way, Christians were being crushed by persecution and poverty.Citizens were expected to burn incense before Caesar's image and say, "Caesar is Lord." Jesus also mentions a group claiming to be Jews who were actively persecuting Christians.Revelation 2:10 (NLT)"Ten" symbolizes completeness—their suffering would be limited and measured. Jesus promises a "crown of life": be faithful unto death and receive the reward.Revelation 2:11; 20:14–15The second death—the Lake of Fire—is the final judgment for the devil, demons, and those who reject Jesus. Christians die once and live twice. Unbelievers live once and die twice.What does this mean for us?1. God sees your suffering.We all face "thlipsis"—crushing pressure. Suffering isn't a sign of God's absence but the promise of His nearness.2 Corinthians 4:17–18 reminds us our present troubles are small and temporary, producing eternal glory. If you navigate suffering with God, temporary pain becomes eternal reward.2. Don't measure spiritual success by worldly wealth.Jesus called Smyrna "rich." Heaven measures wealth differently.Luke 12:15—life isn't measured by what you own.1 Timothy 6:18–19—be rich in good works.The world counts possessions; Heaven counts faithfulness.3. Sometimes idolatry isn't a god, but a government.Smyrna's temptation was emperor worship. Christians should be informed and involved, but the political process isn't the world's savior. Make political opinions subject to God's Word.4. Real faith leads to resolute faithfulness.Talent gets applause; faithfulness gets a crown (1 Peter 1:7).Faith that only works when life works isn't real faith.When suffering comes, it may not stop immediately. But God fills you with His love, peace, joy, and presence. What was meant to destroy you loses its power to define you.John 16:33—In this world you will have trials, but take heart; Jesus has overcome the world.Jesus is the solution to your suffering. He is faithful to you. Remain faithful to Him, and you will receive the crown of life.Will you be faithful like the believers in Smyrna?

Business Pants
Epstein (non)accountability, Disney's shiny CEO toy, Nike vs. EEOC, Texas oil blacklist is illegal

Business Pants

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2026 59:30


Our show today is being sponsored by Free Float Analytics, the only platform measuring board power, connections, and performance for FREE.Story of the Week (DR):Epstein: The tech brosReid Hoffman (2,658 Files)Bill Gates (2,592 Files)Peter Thiel (2,281 Files)Elon Musk (1,116 Files)Kimbal too (100+ files)Larry Page (314 Files)Sergey Brin (294 Files)Mark Zuckerberg (282 Files)Jeff Bezos (196 Files)Eric Schmidt (193 Files)Epstein: the lack of US-based corporate fallout MMHead of firm founded by Mandelson to quit after Epstein releasesBenjamin Wegg-Prosser, the chief executive of the lobbying firm co-founded with Peter Mandelson, has announced his resignation after information in the Jeffrey Epstein files detailed apparent links between the company and the convicted sex offender.‘Ignore It.' How the Elite Consoled Jeffrey Epstein Over His Crimes.A Revolt Inside Paul Weiss Over the Epstein Files Took Down Brad KarpOn Wednesday, an exclusive group of 10 or so Paul Weiss partners met unbeknown to their longtime chairman, Brad Karp, to discuss whether he could continue to lead the law firm.The partners, who manage the firm and refer to themselves as the “Deciding Group,” were grappling with the release of new emails suggesting Karp had a more extensive relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than they realized, including in the months before the convicted sex offender's death. Karp led one of the country's biggest law firms for 18 years and had survived a maelstrom less than a year ago when he struck a first-of-its-kind settlement with President Trump on his firm's behalf. He wouldn't survive a second controversy as the firm's leader. World Economic Forum investigates its CEO over Epstein linksCEO Borge BrendeWasserman Group CEO issues public apology after being mentioned in Epstein filesCasey WassermanPeter Attia, longevity doctor named in Epstein files, no longer listed on advisory board on sleep tech company's websiteBut still at CBS: but Bari Weiss hates cancel cultureElon Musk announces SpaceX's acquisition of AI startup xAIRecord-Breaking $1.25 Trillion ValuationGoal: Orbital AI Data CentersConsolidation of the "Muskonomy"DisneyJosh D'Amaro (Incoming CEO): Currently the Chairman of Disney Experiences (Parks and Resorts), D'Amaro will officially become CEO on March 18, 2026, following the Annual Shareholder Meeting. He is a 28-year Disney veteran credited with driving the $36 billion revenue growth in the parks segment.Disney's next CEO often dresses like Bob Iger. Is it a good idea to copy your boss's style?Dana Walden (New President & CCO): In a historic move, Walden (formerly Co-Chair of Disney Entertainment) has been named President and Chief Creative Officer. Reporting directly to D'Amaro, she will oversee the creative direction of the entire company, ensuring brand consistency across all storytelling platforms.Same Old Disney: Woke Exec Elevated to Top Position as ‘Head Storyteller'Bob Iger (Senior Advisor): Iger will step down as CEO on March 18 but will remain as a Senior Advisor and Board Member until his formal retirement on December 31, 2026, to ensure an "orderly transition."PayBase SalaryTarget BonusAnnual EquityOne-Time AwardTotal Year 1Josh D'Amaro$2.5M$6.25M$26.25M$9.7M$44.7MDana Walden$3.75M$7.5M$15.75M$5.26M$32.26MGoodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Judge rules Texas anti-ESG law is unconstitutionalMM: 38% of Companies' Emissions Trajectories Are Aligned with Global Climate Goals: MSCIAssholiest Triggeringiest of the Week (MM):Nike among the first targeted by EEOC for DEI activity DRThe charge: Specifically, on May 24, 2024, EEOC Commissioner (now Chair) Andrea R. Lucas issued Charge No. 551-2024-04996, alleging that Respondent NIKE may have violated Title VII “by engaging in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment against White employees, applicants, and training program participants in hiring, promotion, demotion, or separation decisions (including selection for layoffs); internship programs; and mentoring, leadership development, and other career development programs.”This is crazy to me: EEOC counsel signatory GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS - a black woman who signed off on this lawsuit was the subject of an entire article on the amazing power of Title VII for the civil rights movement in July of 2024. Reams has been at EEOC since 1972, and Biden made her acting general counsel.Trump took over, appointed Andrea Lucas as chair who DEMOTED Reams to Associate General Counsel to make room for Catherine Eschbach, a Federalist Society who has SIX YEARS EXPERIENCE AT A LAW FIRM who got her Bachelor's in 2010 and her law degree in 2015 (a whole 10 years experience!), but had this to say upon her appointment: “President Trump made clear in his executive order on eliminating DEI that EO 11246 had facilitated federal contractors adopting DEI practices out of step with the requirements of our Nation's civil rights laws and that, with the rescission of EO 11246, the President mandates federal contractors wind those practices down within 90 days. As director, I'm committed to carrying out President Trump's executive orders, which will restore a merit-based system to provide all workers with equal opportunity.”All the other lawyers signing were white, and I can only guess Reams had no choice but to sign unless she decided to do MLK dirty 60 years after seeing him in collegeBut literally, the EEOC discriminated against a black lawyer who was in charge to put white lawyers in charge to bring discrimination cases against companiesNOT TO MENTION, here is Nike's workforce composition in 2024:57% white, 50% male overall65% white, 55% males for management77% white, 62% male for leadershipThe EEOC workforce demographics as of 2022, when it was WOKEST:60% white, 56% maleNIKE IS WHITER THAN THE EEOC FROM MANAGEMENT UPBlackrock and every Wall Street bank that quit Net Zero AllianceRather than sticking it out and fighting, knowing that you were correct and legally able to invest however you wanted and associate with anyone you wanted, you all cowered when Texas passed the first law saying you “discriminate against” fossil fuels and generated an arbitrary “black list”Now, this: Texas anti-ESG law declared unconstitutional by US judgeIn a decision made public on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Alan Albright said the law violated First Amendment free-speech protections because it punished businesses for speaking about fossil fuels and associating with organizations that oppose fossil fuels.First Amendment! The very first one! You didn't even have to read ALL the amendments to figure out which Stewardship whiningThe UK Investment Association stewardship working group, a group that included Aegon, BlackRock, Fidelity, M&G, Schroders, Artemis, CCLA, Legal and General, and Royal London Asset Management, put out a paper: Realigning Stewardship: Delivering sustainable value through StewardshipThe group wants you to know some things about stewardship, specifically:Stuff happening in the future is too far away for us to care now: “The need for realism over what stewardship can achieve – There are potential time horizon trade-offs between achieving real world outcomes on sustainability themes such as climate change and delivering financial returns to clients. These trade-offs need to be actively considered. Additionally, there are concerns that targeted sustainability goals may not always be realistic, and that government and other stakeholders may have developed unrealistic expectations of stewardship's capacity to deliver systemic change.”Translation: if we actually invested for climate and were stewards of climate in our portfolios given that climate change will totally fuck up everything we know and invest in, we'd have to give up on, like, AI and oil and stuff… we can't really do that because there's too much money and stonks and rockets and whatever, so we'll give up on climate, but just like, for NOW, later we'll fix it by asking nicelyDespite historically having voted 96% in favor of virtually EVERYTHING: “There is an undue focus on voting as a barometer of good stewardship, which does not reflect the role of all stewardship mechanisms.”Translation: we get no credit for talking about this for a decade and voting for everything - like, NONE. Stewardship teams are seen as cost centers, not alpha generation. But we should get credit for talking about stuff in the hopes that things change over a long period of time.We are poor: “There are different costs associated with the process of stewardship for both investors and companies, who have finite resources.”Translation: I mean, PLENTY of resources for CEO pay that outstrips inflation and massive AI investments to displace workers and stuff, but you know… poor.OMG, stop whining… the vote IS THE MECHANISM YOU'VE NEVER USED! Your owners WANT YOU TO and you vote with management at a higher rate than people in the US believe in the moon landing!Headliniest of the WeekDR: The meritocracy is officially a lie: Elon Musk's hiring advice: 'Don't look at the résumé — just believe your interaction'DR: It's official, we are right about everything: Disney's Bob Iger achieves an essential feat for outgoing CEOs: giving his successor a clean slateMM: Hillary Clinton wants testimony on Jeffrey Epstein in public: 'Let's stop the games'MM: My neighborhood is pushing back against sidewalk delivery robots. The fight's coming to your town nextPicture of the week from inside a Cracker Barrel, which is getting its mojo back:Who Won the Week?DR: The Epstein Bros (see Matt's winner)MM: White men (again) - I am already filing a lawsuit against that girl in high school who wouldn't make out with me for discriminating against white men with ugly glasses and long noses. It's racism of the highest order.PredictionsDR: The best we can hope for are shareholder derivative lawsuits against boards who failed to oversee the "reputational risk” of their Epstein tech bro directors and CEOs. MM: When I saw this: Elon Musk says it's hard to convince engineers with families to move to SpaceX's 'technology monastery' in Texas, it was clear: Elon Musk will re-reincorporate SpaceX in a really nice suburb somewhere near or around San Francisco in an effort to re-re-rehire talent (who may actually have families), after which a single white man who moved to Texas to join SpaceX will sue the company for discrimination against single white men who move to Texas, forcing Musk to re-re-reincorporate in Texas again.

Minimum Competence
Legal News for Thurs 1/29 - Review of Alex Pretti Murder, Looming Judiciary Shutdown, Google $135m Settlement and a Teacher's Failed First Amendment Appeal

Minimum Competence

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 29, 2026 7:39


This Day in Legal History: “Axis of Evil”On January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush delivered his first State of the Union address after the September 11 attacks, a speech that would shape U.S. legal and foreign policy for years to come. During the address, Bush coined the term “Axis of Evil” to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, alleging these nations were actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism. The speech marked a significant rhetorical shift in the U.S. posture toward preemptive military action and helped solidify a legal framework for broad executive authority in the name of national security. Citing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the Bush administration would go on to justify military interventions without new Congressional declarations of war.The “Axis of Evil” framing played a critical role in building public and political support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Though the legal justification centered on Iraq's supposed weapons programs and ties to terrorism, both claims were later discredited, leading to intense scrutiny of the legal rationale behind the war. Domestically, the period following the speech saw rapid expansion of executive power, new surveillance authorities, and detention practices that raised constitutional concerns. Internationally, the speech signaled a departure from multilateral norms and toward unilateral action under the banner of American security interests.The legal legacy of the address continues to reverberate in debates over presidential war powers and the limits of the AUMF. Critics argue the speech set a precedent for indefinite military engagement without sufficient Congressional oversight. Supporters contend it met the urgency of a new kind of threat in the post-9/11 world. Regardless of viewpoint, the 2002 State of the Union redefined the intersection of law, war, and foreign policy in the 21st century.A preliminary review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) into the murder of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis did not state that Pretti brandished a firearm, contradicting earlier claims by Trump officials. Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, was shot after reportedly refusing to move from the street when ordered by a customs officer. Initial official statements described Pretti as an armed threat, with the Department of Homeland Security noting he had a handgun—though it was holstered—and Trump aide Stephen Miller labeling him a “domestic terrorist” without evidence. However, video footage from the scene challenged these claims, showing an agent removing a holstered weapon from Pretti's waist before the shooting.The CBP review, based on body camera footage and internal documents, said officers attempted to move Pretti and a woman from the street and used pepper spray when they didn't comply. A struggle followed, during which a Border Patrol agent shouted “He's got a gun!” before both agents opened fire. The review, which is standard protocol, was shared with lawmakers but emphasized it contained no final conclusions. The identities and experience levels of the involved officers, particularly regarding urban crowd control, remain undisclosed. The incident has sparked national controversy and prompted a more restrained response from Trump in its aftermath.U.S. review of Alex Pretti killing does not mention him brandishing firearm | ReutersThe U.S. federal judiciary may only be able to continue full paid operations through February 4 if Congress does not pass funding legislation in time to avert a partial government shutdown. Judge Robert Conrad, who oversees the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, issued a memo warning of the looming shortfall, stating that while courts will remain open on February 2, they would quickly exhaust available funds by February 4. The uncertainty comes amid a broader funding standoff in Congress, where a six-bill package—including money for defense, housing, transportation, and a $9.2 billion judiciary allocation—is stalled.A key point of contention is the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), especially following the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Alex Pretti by immigration officers. Senate Democrats are now refusing to approve DHS funding without reforms, throwing into doubt whether the broader package can pass. Although the bills had passed the Republican-controlled House and previously seemed poised for Senate approval, the Pretti incident has triggered renewed partisan gridlock.If no agreement is reached, this shutdown could affect the judiciary much sooner than the previous lapse in 2025, when courts operated for over two weeks before curtailing services. The current funding crisis threatens court staffing, case management, and broader access to justice. The memo underscores the fragile position of the courts in a prolonged budget standoff, with potential furloughs and suspended operations looming if a deal isn't struck.US judiciary may not be able to fully maintain operations past Feb. 4 in government shutdown | ReutersGoogle has agreed to pay $135 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of collecting Android users' cellular data without their consent. The settlement, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, still needs judicial approval. The lawsuit claimed that even when users closed Google apps, disabled location sharing, or locked their devices, Google continued to gather mobile data, which users had paid for through their carriers. Plaintiffs alleged this behavior amounted to “conversion,” a legal term referring to the unauthorized taking of someone's property for one's own use.Though Google denied any wrongdoing, it agreed to stop transferring data without user consent during Android device setup. The company will also update its Google Play terms to clearly disclose data transfers and give users simpler options to disable them. The case covers Android users dating back to November 12, 2017. If approved, users could receive up to $100 each from the settlement fund.Plaintiffs' attorneys described the agreement as the largest known payout in a conversion case, and they may seek nearly $40 million in legal fees. A trial had been set for August 2026 before the settlement was reached. Google has not commented on the resolution.Google to pay $135 million to settle Android data transfer lawsuit | ReutersGoogle to Pay $135 Million to Settle Android Phone-Data SuitA Christian substitute teacher, Kimberly Ann Polk, has lost her attempt to revive First Amendment claims against Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) after refusing to use transgender students' pronouns. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision, finding Polk unlikely to succeed on claims that the district's pronoun policy violated her free speech and religious freedom rights. The court ruled she failed to show any evidence of religious hostility from the school board and did not meet the legal threshold to proceed with her constitutional claims.Polk argued that MCPS's policy, which requires staff to use names and pronouns aligned with students' gender identities and bars disclosing those identities to unsupportive parents, conflicted with her belief that gender is fixed at birth. While the court dismissed her constitutional claims, it allowed her separate Title VII claim for religious accommodation to proceed. This claim argues that MCPS violated federal civil rights law by not making space for her religious beliefs in its employment practices.The decision was split, with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson dissenting. He called the school policy a “gross assault upon the First Amendment” and argued Polk had a valid free speech claim. The case reflects ongoing national legal tensions between employee religious rights and school policies supporting LGBTQ+ students. Notably, another federal appeals court had previously sided with a teacher in a similar dispute, signaling a potential circuit split.Christian Teacher Can't Undo Pronoun Case First Amendment Loss This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Faith and Freedom
Church Autonomy Doctrine Applies to Liberty University Title VII Case

Faith and Freedom

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 28, 2026 11:00


This male informed Liberty University after his 90-day probationary employment period expired that he wanted to change his name to “Ellenor.” Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

The Republican Professor
Sex Discrimination in the 1964 Civil Rights Act Does Not Reach So-Called "Transgender" Status: Alito

The Republican Professor

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 23, 2026 68:03


We're using the slip opinion this time, see below for a link. Why the Court's majority is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020) (part 10 in a series) about the faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act --This continues to be a real hoot. Part 10: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We continue discussing and we finish with the Republican dissenting opinion of Justice Alito (joined by Thomas) from his II.D through to the end. Kavanaugh's dissent is next, and then we'll be done with this series. Part 10. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Faith Radio Podcast from The Meeting House
Bowman, Matt - Alliance Defending Freedom (agreement between Christian Employers Alliance & EEOC)

Faith Radio Podcast from The Meeting House

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 20, 2026 18:13


Guest: Matt BowmanOrganization: Alliance Defending FreedomPosition: Senior CounselTopic: an agreement between Christian Employers Alliance and EEOC involving the language of the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act and Title VII protecting Christian businesses from being forced to take action that would violate their sincere religious beliefsWebsite: adflegal.org, christianemployersalliance.org

Minimum Competence
Legal News for Tues 1/13 - Uber Sexual Assault Trial, SCOTUS Transgender Sports Cases Loom, Citi Fraud Setback and the NASCAR Tax Break

Minimum Competence

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2026 8:07


This Day in Legal History: Judge Robert W. Archbald ImpeachedOn January 13, 1913, Judge Robert W. Archbald of the U.S. Commerce Court was convicted by the U.S. Senate on articles of impeachment and removed from office, becoming one of the earliest federal judges ousted through this constitutional process. The House had impeached him the prior July on thirteen charges of corruption and misconduct, five of which the Senate upheld. Archbald had used his judicial position to secure favorable deals from railroads and coal companies—entities that regularly appeared before his court. These secretive contracts, executed through intermediaries to obscure his involvement, allowed him to purchase valuable coal lands below market value.One of the more egregious acts involved advising a railroad representative on how to amend legal pleadings to improve their chances of winning in court—a direct violation of judicial ethics. After a twenty-eight-year judicial career, Archbald's fall was swift. His defense largely relied on claims of pure motives, rather than denial of the facts. A senator observed afterward that Archbald was “convicted, not so much of being corrupt, as of lack of plain common sense,” noting his failure to grasp the ethical boundaries expected of judges.The Senate vote was overwhelming, with only five senators dissenting. Every former judge in the Senate, save one, voted to convict. Archbald's conviction marked the first successful impeachment for judicial corruption in U.S. history; earlier impeachments, like that of Judge Pickering in 1804, were rooted in issues like insanity, not unethical conduct. The case prompted calls for reform of the impeachment process itself, with suggestions to create a special judicial conduct court or authorize Senate committees to streamline trials. More broadly, the case had a chilling effect throughout public service, reinforcing ethical standards across all levels of government.Uber is facing a high-stakes sexual assault trial in Phoenix that could have sweeping implications for thousands of similar lawsuits. The case, brought by Oklahoma resident Jaylynn Dean, alleges that Uber failed to protect her from an assault by a driver in 2023. Dean claims Uber has long been aware of sexual assaults committed by drivers but has not taken adequate steps to improve rider safety. This trial marks the first federal bellwether case in a massive consolidation of over 3,000 lawsuits involving similar allegations.Uber maintains that it should not be held liable for criminal actions of independent contractors, arguing its safety features, background checks, and transparency are sufficient. Still, the company faces additional lawsuits in California state court and has been criticized for its historic lack of oversight and a culture focused more on growth than safety.A jury in a previous California case found Uber negligent but ruled that negligence wasn't a direct cause of harm. Uber tried to delay Dean's trial, claiming her attorneys influenced the jury pool with misleading advertisements, but the judge allowed proceedings to continue. The outcome could influence settlement talks, regulatory scrutiny, and investor confidence as Uber continues to defend its safety record.Uber faces sexual assault trial in Arizona that puts its safety record under scrutiny | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two high-profile cases challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar transgender students from participating in female sports teams. While the court previously upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee, that ruling was seen as narrow. The decision to now consider sports-related bans has heightened concerns among transgender rights advocates about broader implications for legal protections.At the heart of these cases is whether such bans violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause or Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. Legal scholars warn that the court's ruling could shape future policies affecting transgender people beyond athletics—such as bathroom access, military service, and healthcare. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has previously supported limits on transgender rights, including allowing restrictions on gender markers for passports and banning transgender people from military service.Idaho's law is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student who has since stopped playing sports, while West Virginia's ban is being challenged by 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has been allowed to compete under lower court rulings. The states argue the laws protect fairness in women's sports by preventing perceived competitive advantages. Lower courts have reached opposing conclusions on the legality of the bans, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to clarify whether restrictions based on biological sex or transgender status require heightened scrutiny.The Court may also have to decide whether its 2020 decision protecting transgender workers under Title VII extends to school settings under Title IX. Legal observers say this case could reshape how courts approach not just transgender rights but broader equal protection claims.US Supreme Court's next transgender rights battle could affect more than sports | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Citigroup's appeal in a lawsuit accusing the bank of enabling a major fraud at Mexican oil services company Oceanografía, effectively allowing the case to proceed. More than 30 plaintiffs—including bondholders, shipping firms, and Rabobank—allege that Citigroup's Banamex unit knowingly financed Oceanografía to the tune of $3.3 billion between 2008 and 2014, despite the company's mounting debt and fraudulent practices, including forged Pemex signatures.Oceanografía, which serviced Mexico's state-owned oil giant Pemex, collapsed in 2014 and was later declared bankrupt. Citigroup uncovered $430 million in fraudulent advances and was fined $4.75 million by the SEC in 2018 for inadequate internal controls. Plaintiffs argue Citigroup hid critical information while profiting from interest on the advances.At the center of the legal battle is whether bondholders can sue Citigroup under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows for triple damages. Citigroup contended their claims were standard securities fraud allegations not suited for RICO and pointed to conflicting rulings in other federal appeals courts. However, the 11th Circuit found the plaintiffs' claims plausible, noting it defied belief that a sophisticated bank like Citigroup was unaware of the fraud. By refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court leaves that ruling intact and allows the lawsuit to move forward.US Supreme Court rebuffs Citigroup appeal in lawsuit over Mexican oil company fraud | ReutersThis week, my column for Bloomberg looks at an obscure but telling tax provision: the so-called NASCAR tax break.Dozens of tax provisions expired at the end of 2025, and Congress will soon debate whether to revive them. Among these is the motorsports entertainment complex depreciation break, which allows racetrack owners to write off their facilities over just seven years—a timeline far shorter than that allowed for buildings like housing or wastewater plants. Initially enacted in 2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, the break was a reaction to a Treasury reclassification effort that would have extended depreciation timelines for motorsports. Rather than accepting the change, Congress locked in the favorable treatment to preserve the status quo.Since then, the provision has been extended repeatedly, despite no clear policy rationale or economic justification. Unlike other tax incentives that at least attempt to stimulate broader economic development, the NASCAR break benefits a narrow group of wealthy owners in a lucrative, sponsor-heavy industry. The economic spillover is minimal, and unlike subsidies for sports stadiums—which are themselves of dubious value—this break doesn't even offer the illusion of local benefit.Its survival has more to do with inertia and lobbying than public interest. Letting it remain expired would save money and demonstrate that the tax code isn't permanently rigged in favor of politically connected sectors. More broadly, the column argues for a disciplined framework to evaluate all expiring provisions based on economic efficiency, equity, administrability, and demonstrated value. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Employee Survival Guide
Racially Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation: Tim Kittle v. Mavis Discount Tire

Employee Survival Guide

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 3, 2026 29:06 Transcription Available


Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.Start with a high performer, add an ugly burst of harassment, and end with a firing justified by a $600 regulatory fine—then ask what the law actually sees. We walk through Kittle v. Mavis Tire to unpack how retaliation can survive early motions while discrimination claims stumble on doctrines like “stray remarks” and the severe or pervasive standard. The story moves from profit turnarounds and bonuses to alleged slave-era taunts, a Nazi salute, and a warning that reporting the issue would “cost you your job,” followed by a rapid transfer and termination. That tight timeline becomes the spine of a viable retaliation claim, even as the court initially dismisses the federal discrimination and hostile environment counts.We get practical about proof. Where's the link between the people using slurs and the people who made the firing decision? How do comparators work, and why do courts demand names, dates, and matching details? We also dig into the DMV waiver pretext: approved by management, paperwork allegedly in hand, and yet transformed into the official reason for termination. When Kittle amends his complaint, he does two big things—alleges behind-the-scenes influence on the decision-makers and pivots to the New York State Human Rights Law's “treated less well” standard, a crucial shift that lowers the bar for a hostile work environment claim compared with Title VII.The final turn is about technology and fairness. If a company auto-deletes audio and video after 30 days, how can anyone prove brief but severe harassment? We explore how data retention policies, legal holds, and fast reporting can make or break a case, and why retaliation claims often become the path to accountability when direct evidence of bias is thin. Listen for a clear, candid map of performance records, timelines, pretext analysis, and state-versus-federal standards—and walk away with a sharper sense of how to document, escalate, and protect yourself when the stakes are high. If this breakdown helps, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review to support more deep dives like this. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Faith and Freedom
Major Development in New York Health Care Workers Case

Faith and Freedom

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 31, 2025 11:00


The U.S. Supreme Court is asking the federal government to weigh in on how to potentially resolve the issue when state laws conflict with Title VII protections. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

X22 Report
What Does The [DS] Do When Bad New Is About To Break? White Hats Are In Control – Ep. 3795

X22 Report

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 15, 2025 96:49


Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe people of the US are feeling economic hangover from Biden/Obama, it will start to improve 2026.Trump is shutting down the corrupt H1-B visa with charging for it. Trump is using the tariffs to lower the deficit which is lowering the Fed inflation. Tariffs are bringing in trillions of dollars. The [DS] is pushed the Epstein hoax, they redacted a picture that was already public, the Dem Esptein hoax is real. The [DS] is panicking, they are preparing for bad news against them. The infiltration is now attacking. The [DS] brought them into each country to conquer the countries. Trump and team are in control of the pieces, it doesn’t mean we the enemy will not attack. White hats are in control. Economy https://twitter.com/nedryun/status/1999590708995579967?s=20  administration put us in such a very, very tough spot.” (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1999881070188073298?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2000240482295664646?s=20 https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1999977885591814217?s=20 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1999584404814057970?s=20  https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2000238965744410694?s=20   inflation.” “We’ve got the trade deficit cut in half from last year.” “All of these things are things that should continue to move us towards the Fed target of 2%.” Don’t let the “Experts” lie to the American people   These changes are said to help push inflation toward the Federal Reserve’s 2% target rate. Lower deficits and trade imbalances reduce economic pressures that drive up prices, potentially stabilizing costs for consumers and businesses.  these figures signal improving fiscal health. For context, the U.S. deficit was around $1.7 trillion in 2024; dropping it by $600 billion would bring it closer to $1.1 trillion—a substantial cut that could ease long-term debt concerns and support lower interest rates.  Lower inflation to 2% would mean steadier prices, boosting real wages and consumer confidence.   The U.S. budget deficit is the annual shortfall when government spending exceeds revenue in a given fiscal year. The national debt is the total accumulated amount owed from all past deficits (plus interest), essentially the running total of borrowed money. https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2000268781084348516?s=20 Political/Rights https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1999945168120848428?s=20 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2000177646072631506?s=20 https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/2000142553815847148?s=20 https://twitter.com/HamasAtrocities/status/2000263382197481781?s=20 https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/2000304813591118154?s=20 from pakistan https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2000160163282727197?s=20 https://twitter.com/TheBritLad/status/2000308891104797052?s=20 https://twitter.com/Currentreport1/status/2000199214870180153?s=20 https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/2000055847309791603?s=20 Brown University Shooting Suspect In Custody; Gunman “Yelled Something” Before Attack On Econ Classroom  The shooter “yelled something” before the attack … Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2000264684180746600?s=20   authorities have detained the suspect in the Brown University shooting that occurred on December 13, 2025, which left two students dead and nine others injured.  The person of interest, identified as 24-year-old Benjamin Erickson from Wisconsin (who is not a Brown student), was taken into custody early on December 14 at a hotel in Coventry, Rhode Island, about 15 miles from the campus.  Officials have confirmed no other suspects are being sought, and the investigation is ongoing. A revolver and a small Glock handgun were recovered at the hotel. From the available information and reports on the Brown University shooting suspect, Benjamin Erickson (a 24-year-old man from West Bend, Wisconsin, born in 2001, and a U.S. Army Cyber Warfare Officer), https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/2000211287184216117?s=20 https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/2000261881504661801?s=20  Democrat tells you guns make us less safe — ask them to explain why so many counties with the HIGHEST gun ownership rates have BELOW average violent crime rates. Guns aren't making us less safe and gun laws won't solve the problem. Most of our recent mass shootings had shooters who already violated gun laws to commit their crimes. The left wing culture in America, including mass migration is making us less safe. It's the root of our problem. Fix our regressive, hedonistic, violence and evil loving culture. That will fix America. We need our country to value strength, life, love, liberty, faith and family again. That's the antidote to the poison that creates a violence society. https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2000244040667676940?s=20   this morning, FBI Boston's Safe Streets Task Force, with assistance from the @USMarshalsHQ & the @Coventry_RI_PD , detained a person of interest in a hotel room in Coventry, RI, based off a lead by the @ProvidenceRIPD . We have deployed local and national resources to process and reconstruct the shooting scene – providing HQ and Lab elements on scene. We set up a digital media intake portal to ingest images and video from the public related to this incident. And the FBI's victim specialists are fully integrating with our partners to provide resources to victims and survivors of this horrific violence. This FBI will continue an all out 24/7 campaign until justice is fully served. Thanks to the men and women of the FBI and our partners for their continued teamwork. Please continue praying for the victims and their families – as well as all those at Brown University. https://twitter.com/justicecometh/status/2000250433718391025?s=20 Both Bill and Hillary are set to testify before Congress over the next 2 days. TRULY WICKED: Obama Judge Lavishly PRAISES Illegal Alien Who R*ped and Sodomized Helpless Woman with Cerebral Palsy – Refuses to Add More Years to His Sentence The Detroit News reported on Friday that a violent illegal alien from Honduras who sexually assaulted a woman with cerebral palsy in a Michigan laundry room will be released from prison as early as July 2028, less than three tears from now thanks to a federal judge appointed by Barack Obama. The illegal, 30-year-old handyman Edys Renan Membreño Díaz was previously caught sneaking into the U.S. at least seven times since 2019. He pleaded guilty in 2022 to sexually assaulting the woman and was sentenced by Judge Judith Levy in August 2024 to time served. She had the opportunity to serve two more years to his sentence but declined to do so. https://twitter.com/TriciaOhio/status/1999903030284599656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1999903030284599656%7Ctwgr%5E2356e2c49fec253cd07998523821c20be68fb92b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Ftruly-wicked-obama-judge-lavishly-praises-illegal-alien%2F   laundry room . He was sentenced 3 years ago and could be released from prison as early as July 2028. But, the U.S. District Judge Judith Levy refused to sentence him to 2 more years for immigration crimes and called this monster a future “ambassador for living up to our immigration restrictions.” This Obama appointed judge went on to praise him for “family devotion and willingness to perform work that it claimed Americans find undesirable.” Truly wicked. https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/1999908172190937190?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1999908172190937190%7Ctwgr%5E2356e2c49fec253cd07998523821c20be68fb92b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Ftruly-wicked-obama-judge-lavishly-praises-illegal-alien%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com OT Finds Half Of NY Commercial Drivers Are Illegals, Threatens To Pull $73 Million In Federal Funding The Department of Transportation is threatening to pull $73 million in federal highway funding from New York after an audit found that half of the state’s commercial trucking licenses were issued to illegal immigrants. “What New York does is if an applicant comes in and they have a work authorization — for 30 days, 60 days, one year — New York automatically issues them an eight-year commercial driver's license,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Friday during a press conference at DOT headquarters, adding “That’s contrary to law.” “But we also found that New York many times won't even verify whether they have a work authorization, they have a visa, or they're in the country legally. “So they're just giving eight-year commercial driver's licenses to people who are coming through their DMV and sending them out on American roadways — and again they're endangering the lives of American families.” Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1999919282982093126?s=20 https://twitter.com/THEDuaneCates/status/1999797760569032896?s=20   March of next year the 2 million self deports will be 25+ As our AmericanDream stabilizes and begins to recover. https://twitter.com/Patri0tContr0l/status/1999878469518287022?s=20   media enough. https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1999666180118970644?s=20   over the faces of 20+ year old women to make the public believe they were minors and victims. Total BS. These were models representing the well-known American suntan lotion brand Hawaiian Tropic at a Mar-a-Lago event. One of the women, who was 22 at the time the photo was taken, told The Telegraph today that Donald Trump was a “gentleman” and “went out of his way” to ensure their entire group enjoyed their time at Mar-a-Lago. “I was 22 years old and remember him being very nice. He was very gentlemanly, that's the word to describe him,” she said. Not a SINGLE ONE of them accused Trump of wrongdoing. It's absolutely freaking shameful how Democrats have decided to discard ACTUAL victims of Jeffrey Epstein in an attempt to falsely smear President Trump. DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1999875618138177603?s=20  finalizing a comprehensive US Brazil pact that ties trade cooperation to reversing Brazil's censorship & lawfare machinery. Brazil is granting amnesty to Lula's political rivals & removing major authorities from Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Trump offered a goodwill reversal of Global Magnitsky sanctions placed on de Moraes just months ago to open the door to renewed ties built on a $6.8 billion US trade surplus. It marks a decisive shift in Brazil's direction under Trump's diplomatic pressure. https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1999971147677585449?s=20   the same values and interests that we share, for democracy and to create a new alliance in South America,” “The U.S. has a lot of technology and has a lot of experience and sustainable extraction of resources. We want to take advantage of that. Of course, we want to receive some technology transfers and to be part of the whole chain of production.” The Uyuni Salt Flat in Bolivia holds the world’s largest lithium reserves—estimated at 21 million tons—vital for batteries. China currently controls over 80% of global lithium production. This move would give American industry a huge boost. This is for all the naysayers who question Trump’s recent moves to reclaim domination of the Western Hemisphere. War/Peace https://twitter.com/SecWar/status/1999882265355227392?s=20  https://twitter.com/RamboAndFrens/status/1999911602376851472?s=20 Germany Sends Troops Into Poland ‘To Protect' NATO'S East Border With Russia and Belarus   Germany is sending troops into Poland! Calm down – it's not 1939. But it could end up just as bad. Today (13), it has been reported that Germany is sending soldiers to Poland, in a bid to ‘strengthen' NATO's eastern border with Belarus and Russia. Politico reported: “Several dozen German soldiers will join Poland's East Shield from April 2026, with the mission initially running until the end of 2027, Deutsche Welle reported, citing Berlin's defense ministry. German troops will focus on engineering work, according to a ministry spokesperson quoted in the report. The spokesperson described this as building positions, digging trenches, laying barbed wire and constructing anti-tank obstacles.  .” Source: thegatewaypundit.com Zelenskyy offers to drop NATO bid for security guarantees but rejects US push to cede territory   Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Zelenskyy on Sunday (December 14, 2025) voiced readiness to drop his country’s bid to join NATO in exchange for Western security guarantees, but rejected the U.S. push for ceding territory to Russia as he arrived in Berlin for talks with U.S. envoys on ending the war. Source: thehindu.com CIA Outlet Concerned About Kash Patel and Dan Bongino Meeting with Top Zelenskyy Officials It  been  reported that the FBI has been working closely with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) in detecting and discovering corruption amid Ukraine officials who have skimmed money from various international aid programs.  However, the Washington Post is suddenly concerned that FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino have held “secret meetings” with lead Ukraine peace negotiator Rustem Umerov.   it is easy to get the sense that Rustem Umerov is in alignment with the U.S. proposals, but Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not.  Hence, Zelenskyy keeps returning to his U.K, France, Germany and EU support network for counterproposals despite his officials like Umerov working with the U.S. team directly. This paragraph from within the WaPo (CIA) framework seems to tell a background story: […] “The meetings have caused alarm among Western officials who remain in the dark about their intent and purpose. Some said they believe Umerov and other Ukrainian officials sought out Patel and Bongino in the hopes of obtaining amnesty from any corruption allegations the Ukrainians could face. Others worry the newly established channel could be used to exert pressure on Zelensky's government to accept a peace deal, proposed by the Trump administration, containing steep concessions for Kyiv.” (more) Perhaps Zelenskyy's primary negotiator for the USA team, Rustem Umerov, has specific knowledge of corruption connected to the generous financial support the USA has provided Ukraine.  Watching Yermak get taken down within the FBI/NABU investigation, might have triggered Umerov to cooperate on several levels. Umerov reported as happy with the negotiated U.S. terms. Volodymyr Zelenskyy openly not happy with the negotiated terms. This is worth watching. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/jcokechukwu/status/1999635471991992548?s=20   Christmas Day, December 25 to accept peace deal of America is done for good. PresidentTrump told Volodymyr Zelensky that he has until Christmas to accept his deal to end the war with Russia, and then said that Ukraine will eventually succumb to Russia unless agreement is signed Keep in mind that if America is done with Ukraine it's basically done with NATO/EU. Meanwhile, a U.S. lawmaker, Thomas Massie just recently introduced a bill to remove the United States from NATO completely. While all that is simmering, President Putin releases this highly impassioned video, letting America and Americans know what a great partnership it'll be for Russia and the U.S. to work together. He paints a future filled with immeasurable mutual benefits and shared strengths. Me: I agree  % Imagine the historic tectonic geopolitical earthquake this would cause – two of the world's most powerful nations, two of the worlds leading nuclear powers, two unashamedly Christian nations, two gigantic neighbors with some of the world's most advanced space technologies. Chew on that for a minute. It'll literally change everything! Old guard being removed Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1998039567677767817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1998039567677767817%7Ctwgr%5E2cab4574d42020afe9d0c3cf4d6443e94d4c276a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Fwhite-house-slams-vermont-schools-somali-flag-hoist%2F Justice Department Sues Minneapolis Schools Over Race-Based Hiring Policies The Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit this week against Minneapolis Public Schools, alleging that the district violated federal civil-rights law by embedding race-based employment preferences into its collective bargaining agreement with the teachers' union. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the complaint challenges contract provisions that prioritize teachers from “underrepresented populations” during layoffs, reassignments, and recalls, and that grant exclusive employment benefits to members of a third-party program known as “Black Men Teach Fellows.” Federal officials argue the policies violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race or sex in employment. Source: thegatewaypundit.com [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1999702068052000852?s=20  on luxury hotel stays and $23,000 renting the Coliseo De Puerto Rico, where she was spotted dancing at a Bad Bunny concert in August. She stayed at the “first-class, adults only” Hotel Palacio Provincial, which boasts “transcendent hints of the structure’s grand colonial past.” Another $10,700 went to meals and catering. This while AOC denounced “gentrification” on the island on social media. Back on the mainland, her “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with Bernie Sanders included $6,600 at Hotel Vermont and $6,300 for a single meal at an Italian restaurant in DC. Fighting oligarchy is exhausting work. Someone has to stay at the colonial boutique hotels. Biden Has Raised Little of What He Needs to Build a Presidential Library His library foundation has told the I.R.S. that by the end of 2027 it expects to bring in just $11.3 million — not nearly enough for a traditional presidential library. Source: nytimes.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1999843168259326313?s=20 https://twitter.com/BreakTheChainsM/status/1999618299135664403?s=20 President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1999880370628808937?s=20 Appeals Court Overturns Obama Judge's Order Blocking Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Provision Barring Funding for Planned Parenthood  Another win for the Trump Administration. A federal appeals court on Friday overturned Judge Talwani's (already halted) orders blocking Trump's Big Beautiful Bill provision that barred funding for Planned Parenthood. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Talwani's July orders granting preliminary injunctions blocking the provision. The three-judge panel unanimously overturned Judge Talwani's orders. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/2000013679501222248?s=20   if I were drowning he'd push me under. Friend can, and should, be judged by the company he keeps as well as his unhinged threat against Kash Patel and what appears to be unauthorized (and inaccurate) disclosures of investigative information. They are not men of integrity, they used a sympathetic MAGA base to sell books, promote podcasts, contribute to their fundraising sites. This bad behavior should not be endorsed, nor excused, by anyone.  https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1999559961555112354?s=20 https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/1999488546688668023?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1999488546688668023%7Ctwgr%5E6c909da47fcbfad57d7abed97bc0ca0d1edc0165%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Fdoj-sues-four-states-violating-federal-election-law%2F https://twitter.com/JoeLang51440671/status/1999693589547483396?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1999808771065827447?s=20   mail-in voting, all the things, make our elections secure and safe!” “If you don’t get it, you’ll NEVER pass [voter ID].” Election year starts in a few weeks. The GOP needs more to show for it. https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/2000299373226561793?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

The Republican Professor
Sex, Gender Discrimination in the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- Alito's Bostock Dissent Cont. thru II.C

The Republican Professor

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 12, 2025 66:59


Why the Court's majority is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 9 in a series) about the faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act --This continues to be a real hoot. Part 9: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We continue discussing the Republican dissenting opinion of Justice Alito (joined by Thomas) from his Roman numeral I.B through his II.C, stopping at but not commencing his II.D. We'll have one more episode of Alito's dissent (joined by Thomas) and and then one further one on Kavanaugh's dissent, so two more episodes on this Supreme Court case. Part 9. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Minimum Competence
Legal News for Thurs 12/4 - DEI Federal Worker Lawsuit, SEC Enforcement Collapses, and More Racist Green Card Freezes

Minimum Competence

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 4, 2025 6:21


This Day in Legal History: SkidmoreOn December 4, 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., a case interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs were firefighters employed by a private company who sought overtime pay for time spent waiting on the employer's premises, even when not actively fighting fires. The Court ruled that such “waiting time” could qualify as compensable work depending on the circumstances — a fact-intensive inquiry rather than a rigid rule. More significantly, the Court declined to treat the Department of Labor's interpretation of the FLSA as binding. Instead, Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, articulated what became known as “Skidmore deference,” explaining that agency interpretations are entitled to respect based on their “power to persuade,” not their authority.This approach emphasized judicial independence while still valuing agency expertise, setting a flexible standard for reviewing administrative interpretations. For decades, Skidmore shaped the way courts evaluated regulatory guidance, particularly where statutes were silent or ambiguous. That changed in 1984, when the Court decided Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, introducing a more deferential, two-step test that often required courts to uphold reasonable agency interpretations. Chevron effectively sidelined Skidmore, making agency interpretations more binding than persuasive.That more restrained approach to agency interpretation—Skidmore's “power to persuade”—quietly persisted in the background during the decades-long dominance of Chevron deference. But on June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court formally overruled Chevron, declaring that courts must exercise independent judgment in interpreting statutes, even when those statutes are ambiguous. The Court emphasized that the Administrative Procedure Act assigns to the judiciary—not agencies—the duty to “decide all relevant questions of law” and interpret statutory provisions without default deference to agency views. In doing so, the Court explicitly endorsed the Skidmore model of respect rather than deference, reaffirming that agency interpretations may still inform judicial decisions, but only to the extent they are persuasive. So, 80 years after Skidmore was decided, its modest, judge-centered vision of statutory interpretation has once again become the law of the land.A group of former federal employees filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the Trump administration unlawfully removed them from their jobs due to their work in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The plaintiffs claim the dismissals were politically motivated and violated their First Amendment rights as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.According to the complaint, the reductions in force went beyond typical administrative turnover, instead constituting a deliberate effort to punish perceived political opponents. The plaintiffs argue they were targeted because they held, or were believed to have held, roles connected to DEI initiatives, which President Trump vocally opposed. The lawsuit points to executive orders that allegedly discriminated against women, people of color, and nonbinary individuals.Defendants named include the White House, Justice Department, CIA, Defense Department, Federal Reserve, Labor Department, and Treasury. The plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement, back pay, restoration of seniority, and attorneys' fees.Trump, Agencies Hit With Ex-Federal Workers' Political Bias SuitUnder President Trump's second administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is on track for its lowest number of earnings fraud and auditor liability enforcement actions since the Reagan era. So far in 2025, only 20 such cases have been filed—far below the historical average of 79 per year since Trump's first term began in 2017. The decline is attributed to leadership changes, a 43-day government shutdown, shifting agency priorities, and a shrinking SEC staff due to retirements and buyouts.SEC Chair Paul Atkins has emphasized targeting only the most harmful and deliberate frauds, deprioritizing minor or technical violations. Enforcement has also slowed due to procedural constraints, including legal challenges limiting the use of in-house judges and forcing more cases into federal court. Despite the drop in formal actions, former officials and commission watchers caution that investigations continue behind the scenes and could yield future penalties.The agency did finalize some notable settlements early in the year, including $19 million from American Electric Power and $8 million from GrubMarket. However, enforcement activity has since dropped steeply, marking the largest first-year decline following a presidential inauguration since the 1980s.SEC's Earnings Fraud, Auditor Liability Cases Plunge Under TrumpU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it will stop processing green cards and related immigration benefits for individuals from 19 countries named in a June Trump administration travel ban. This expanded restriction follows a separate decision by the State Department to suspend visa processing for Afghan nationals after a deadly shooting involving two National Guard members in Washington, D.C.The new USCIS policy affects several types of applications, including those for permanent residency, green card replacements, travel documents, and requests by permanent residents to maintain status while abroad. The halt applies regardless of when the applicant entered the U.S. The agency cited national security concerns as the reason for the changes and indicated all affected individuals may face renewed interviews or screenings.The travel ban currently includes countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Venezuela, and others, with reports suggesting the administration plans to expand the list to about 30 nations. The memo emphasized that individuals from these “high-risk countries of concern” who arrived in the U.S. after January 20, 2021, are subject to re-evaluation.Trump Travel Ban Limits Extend to Green Cards, Other Benefits This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Teleforum
Litigation Update: Lange v. Houston County

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 24, 2025 52:39 Transcription Available


Anna Lange, an employee with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, sought “male-to-female sex change surgery.” The county’s employer-provided health insurance policy covered some treatments for gender dysphoria, but it excluded drugs, services, and supplies for a “sex-change” (among other categories). Lange sued, claiming the policy discriminated based on sex and transgender status in violation of Title VII. The district court, affirmed by an Eleventh Circuit panel, held that the policy facially violated Title VII under Bostock v. Clayton County. On rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the county’s policy, which drew a line between which treatments it covers, “is not facial discrimination based on protected status.”Lange v. Houston County, decided on September 9, 2025, is one of the first circuit court decisions to apply the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s law prohibiting healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to transition a minor's gender did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Join Christopher Mills and Rachel Morrison for a discussion of Lange, its application of Skrmetti and Bostock, and its implications for Title VII and insurance coverage.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Employee Survival Guide
Employees Need Legal Advice Before Downloading Company Information to Build a Case

Employee Survival Guide

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 17, 2025 22:06 Transcription Available


Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.Think you're protecting yourself by forwarding emails, saving pay spreadsheets, and uploading screenshots to a chatbot before HR lowers the boom? That impulse can turn a strong discrimination or retaliation claim into a story about you breaking the rules. We walk through the hidden legal traps that many employees miss—confidentiality agreements, acceptable use policies, non-disparagement clauses—and how employers flip those mistakes into a ready-made defense.We pull back the curtain on the “retaliation playbook”: IT flags unusual downloads, HR opens a policy investigation, and termination arrives with a “legitimate, non-retaliatory reason.” Then comes after-acquired evidence to limit damages, motions to exclude improperly obtained documents, and the credibility battle that distracts from your core allegations. We also break down the whistleblower myth. Some statutes can protect targeted document retention, but coverage is narrow, fact-specific, jurisdiction-dependent, and easy to lose. Relying on Title VII's anti-retaliation language to excuse broad data grabs is a costly mistake.The AI trap gets special attention. Uploading company files to a chatbot creates discoverable records, waives privilege, and can breach your NDA. It also invites arguments that you were case-shopping, not reporting unlawful conduct. Instead of risking counterclaims and evidence exclusions, follow the safer path: consult an employment lawyer early, use contemporaneous personal notes, make formal complaints that trigger preservation, consider agency filings like the EEOC to lock in holds, and deploy preservation letters to prevent deletion. We close with a practical checklist of do nots and smart alternatives that keep your claim strong and the focus on the employer's conduct.If this conversation could save a colleague from a self-inflicted wound, share it. Subscribe for more plain-English employment law guidance, and leave a review to tell us what topic you want next. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

The Republican Professor
The Bostock Dissents -- Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia 2020 Alito Dissenting Joined by Thomas Thru I.A.

The Republican Professor

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 12, 2025 76:19


Why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 8 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act --This is a real hoot. Part 8: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover the Republican dissenting opinion of Justice Alito (joined by Thomas) through his Roman numeral I through the rest of subsection A. Part 8. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Crosstalk America from VCY America
SCOTUS to Consider Case That Could Overturn Obergefell

Crosstalk America from VCY America

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 5, 2025 53:28


Mat Staver is founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. Mat is a constitutional attorney with three landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He's an author and the host of the radio broadcasts Faith & Freedom and Freedom's Call and the TV broadcast Freedom Alive. It was on June 26th, 2015, when five members of the U.S. Supreme Court invented the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. At that point, states were thrown into a tailspin. For example, Kim Davis, now the former clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, was not willing to bow down to Caesar and would not compromise her religious convictions by issuing marriage licenses to those outside the biblical mandate. For refusing to comply, Kim went to prison. She's now saddled with a $360,000 judgment against her (for emotional distress and hurt feelings claimed by the plaintiffs). The Supreme Court will meet this Friday in conference regarding whether or not to hear this case. Two other cases were discussed. One involved the Texas Supreme Court that ruled unanimously 9-0 to amend their judicial code of ethics so that judges that refuse to participate in so-called, same-sex weddings for religious reasons will not be disciplined. Finally, during the COVID vax mandate of 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the State of New York issued a mandate to all health care employers saying that you cannot give or consider any religious accommodation request. In other words, all health care workers had to get the COVID vaccine. Mat indicated that this overrides Title VII, the federal law that says there's no discrimination on account of religion in the workplace.

Crosstalk America
SCOTUS to Consider Case That Could Overturn Obergefell

Crosstalk America

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 5, 2025 53:28


Mat Staver is founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. Mat is a constitutional attorney with three landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He's an author and the host of the radio broadcasts Faith & Freedom and Freedom's Call and the TV broadcast Freedom Alive. It was on June 26th, 2015, when five members of the U.S. Supreme Court invented the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. At that point, states were thrown into a tailspin. For example, Kim Davis, now the former clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, was not willing to bow down to Caesar and would not compromise her religious convictions by issuing marriage licenses to those outside the biblical mandate. For refusing to comply, Kim went to prison. She's now saddled with a $360,000 judgment against her (for emotional distress and hurt feelings claimed by the plaintiffs). The Supreme Court will meet this Friday in conference regarding whether or not to hear this case. Two other cases were discussed. One involved the Texas Supreme Court that ruled unanimously 9-0 to amend their judicial code of ethics so that judges that refuse to participate in so-called, same-sex weddings for religious reasons will not be disciplined. Finally, during the COVID vax mandate of 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the State of New York issued a mandate to all health care employers saying that you cannot give or consider any religious accommodation request. In other words, all health care workers had to get the COVID vaccine. Mat indicated that this overrides Title VII, the federal law that says there's no discrimination on account of religion in the workplace.

Faith and Freedom
Pastor Fired From Louisiana Library Over Pronoun Policy

Faith and Freedom

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 4, 2025 11:00


The library made no attempt to accommodate his religious beliefs as required by Title VII law. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Ogletree Deakins Podcasts
Inside the Exclusive: The EEOC's New Enforcement Priorities, Part 2—Religious Discrimination, Harassment, and Accommodations

Ogletree Deakins Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 30, 2025 12:41


In this podcast recorded at our recent Corporate Labor and Employment Counsel Exclusive® seminar, Tae Phillips (shareholder, Birmingham), Jim Paul (shareholder, St. Louis/Tampa), and Scott Kelly (shareholder, Birmingham) continue their discussion of the EEOC's evolving enforcement priorities—this time addressing religious discrimination, harassment, and accommodations in the workplace. Jim (who is co-chair of the firm's Disability Access Practice Group) examines recent trends, including the rise in religious accommodation requests, the impact of federal executive orders, and the challenges employers face in navigating religious and political overlap in employee requests. The conversation highlights the complexities of accommodating diverse religious beliefs while maintaining compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and fostering a respectful work environment.

Ogletree Deakins Podcasts
Inside the Exclusive: The EEOC's New Enforcement Priorities, Part 1—National Origin Discrimination

Ogletree Deakins Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 28, 2025 12:39


In part one of this podcast series recorded at our recent Corporate Labor and Employment Counsel Exclusive® seminar, Scott Kelly (shareholder, Birmingham), Tae Phillips (shareholder, Birmingham), and Jim Paul (shareholder, St. Louis/Tampa) discuss the EEOC's new enforcement priorities, with a particular focus on national origin discrimination and the agency's increased emphasis on protecting workers from anti-American bias. Tae (who is co-chair of the firm's Drug Testing Practice Group) and Scott (who chairs the firm's Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group) review recent statements from the EEOC's acting chair, highlight the legal definitions and practical implications of national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and share observations about a rise in related EEOC charges. The conversation also touches on the importance for employers to coordinate labor, employment, and immigration practices in light of these evolving enforcement trends.

The Republican Professor
The Bostock Dissents -- Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia 2020 Alito Dissenting Joined by Thomas Thru I.A

The Republican Professor

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 23, 2025 54:56


Why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 7 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- this is a real hoot. Part 7: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dissents, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover the Republican dissenting opinion written by Justice Alito (joined by Justice Thomas) through Roman numeral I letter A. Part 7. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Employee Survival Guide
S6 Ep 140 Lowering The Bar In Workplace Bias Cases

Employee Survival Guide

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 23, 2025 15:01 Transcription Available


Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!A single HR form can decide a lawsuit. We dig into Shear v. Sisters of Charity to show how a mandatory EAP referral and a required compliance-reporting form collided with the Supreme Court's new “some harm” standard from Muldrow v. City of St. Louis—shifting what counts as an adverse employment action under the ADA and Title VII. The story tracks a familiar arc—productivity issues, a performance improvement plan (PIP), and a sudden turn when coworkers report safety concerns—then pivots to a tougher question: when does care become coercion?We walk through the core facts with clarity: the performance improvement plan, the mandatory referral to an outside EAP provider, and the form that would send attendance and treatment compliance back to the employer as a condition of keeping the job. That form becomes the fault line. Under the old “significant change” rule, a court might see the referral as inconvenient but not legally adverse. After Muldro, the bar drops. Non-monetary harms like coerced disclosures and loss of autonomy now qualify if they leave an employee worse off in a tangible way. We also weigh the employer's best defense—policy consistency across employees—and why uniform rules do not automatically defeat a “regarded as disabled” claim when the trigger is a perceived mental health condition.You'll hear practical guidance woven through the analysis. For employers: narrow data collection, separate safety from performance, document objective reasons, and avoid tying privacy waivers to job survival. For employees: understand how “some harm” broadens viable claims, especially around privacy and compelled consent. By the end, you'll see how Muldro reshapes risk around EAP mandates, monitoring, lateral transfers, and other once “minor” actions—and why the Shear case will influence where courts draw the line between genuine concern and unlawful stereotyping. If this conversation helps you think differently about policy, privacy, and workplace fairness, subscribe, share the episode with a colleague, and leave a quick review to tell us what resonated most. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

HR Stories Podcast - where the Lesson is in the Story
Ep139: Sunday Off - The Cost of Revoking a Religious Accommodation

HR Stories Podcast - where the Lesson is in the Story

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 21, 2025 28:06


Send us a textWhen an employee's request for Sundays off was approved — then revoked — it led to an EEOC case and a costly lesson in religious accommodation law. Chuck and John unpack how one scheduling change turned into a Title VII violation, what the Groff v. DeJoy decision means for employers, and how HR can avoid retaliation, document undue hardship, and protect the company from legal risk. Visit TeamAtHRStories.com to see all of our workshops and offerings to help you feel confident in your HR decisions. Support the showOur new book...The Ultimate Guide to HR: Checklists Edition is now AVAILABLE! Go to UltimateGuidetoHR.com to Get HR Right: and Avoid Costly Mistakes. Certified and approved for 3 SHRM Recertification Credits.Join the HR Team of One Community on Facebook or visit TeamAtHRstories.com and sign up for emails so you can be the first to know about new things we have coming up.You can also follow us on Instagram and TikTok at @HRstoriesPodcast Don't forget to rate our podcast, it really helps other people find it!Do you have a situation or topic you'd like the team to discuss? Are you interested in having Chuck or John talk to your team or Emcee your event? You can reach the Team at Email@TeamAtHRStories.com for suggestions and inquiries.The viewpoints expressed by the characters in the stories are not necessarily that of The Team at HR Stories. The stories are shared to present various, real-world scenarios and share how they were handled by policy and, at times, law. Chuck and John are not lawyers and always recommend working with an employment lawyer to address concerns.

Employee Survival Guide
S6 Ep.138: Ames v. Ohio Is Already Changing the Game for Workers Across the Country

Employee Survival Guide

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 20, 2025 8:52 Transcription Available


Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.A quiet procedural shift just changed the first mile of discrimination lawsuits. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services didn't rewrite what counts as discrimination; it removed a gate that kept thousands from ever presenting their evidence. We walk through the ruling, why the Court's unanimous reasoning leans on Title VII's “any individual” language, and how it replaces a two-track system with one equal starting line for everyone.We trace the real-world costs of the old background circumstances rule through landmark examples like Harding, Zambetti, and McGarry, where courts dismissed claims before discovery because plaintiffs belonged to majority groups. With Ames, that doctrine is gone. District courts across the country are already citing the case to reject early dismissal arguments, signaling that facts—not unequal thresholds—will decide whether claims move forward. For workers, the message is simple: you still have to prove your case, but you're no longer blocked at the door.We also get practical. If you're bringing a Title VII claim, focus on concrete facts—timelines, comparators, deviations from policy, and decision-maker statements. If you're managing teams, double down on consistent criteria, clear documentation, and training that ensures policies are applied the same way every time. The change is national and immediate, impacting sex, race, religion, and national origin claims alike, including orientation-based stereotyping. Access, not outcomes, is the headline—Ames levels the process so evidence can be tested where it belongs.If this conversation helped clarify what Ames means for you or your organization, follow the show, share this episode with a colleague, and leave a quick review telling us what you want covered next. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Faith and Freedom
Liberty University Title VII Case Draws National Attention

Faith and Freedom

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 15, 2025 11:00


He was terminated for open violation of Liberty University's doctrinal statement. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Emerging Litigation Podcast
Unraveling "Reverse Discrimination" with Leah Stiegler

Emerging Litigation Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2025 39:09 Transcription Available


What happens when the traditional understanding of workplace discrimination is turned on its head? Will the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services change how discrimination cases are evaluated when brought by members of majority groups?Attorney Leah Stiegler of Woods Rogers joins us to examine this decision that rejected the "background circumstances rule" -- a standard that previously imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on white, heterosexual, or male plaintiffs claiming discrimination. As Leah explains, "There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. It's just discrimination." This simple yet insightful statement captures the essence of the Court's reasoning that Title VII protections apply equally to all employees, regardless of their demographic status. Leah shares results from mock trials conducted with identical facts in different Virginia jurisdictions. A conservative Lynchburg jury awarded a white male plaintiff $600,000, while a more liberal Richmond jury found no discrimination whatsoever with the exact same evidence. This highlights how geography and community values dramatically influence discrimination case outcomes, sometimes more than the legal standards themselves.We also explore the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework that remains the analytical backbone of discrimination cases, the emerging concept of intersectional discrimination, and recent executive orders concerning religious expression in the workplace. Throughout our discussion, Leah offers practical insights for employers navigating these evolving issues, emphasizing that while the political discourse around DEI initiatives may be contentious, the fundamental prohibition against discrimination remains unchanged.Whether you're an employer developing workplace policies, an HR professional conducting training, or an employee trying to understand your rights, this episode provides essential context for understanding how discrimination law is evolving in unexpected ways. Subscribe to the Emerging Litigation Podcast for more in-depth analysis of the legal issues shaping our workplaces and society.This is Leah's second appearance on the podcast and I appreciate it! Tom HagyHost | The Emerging Litigation Podcast______________________________________ Thanks for listening! If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps. If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more. Tom on LinkedIn Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Teleforum
Litigation Update: Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 6, 2025 59:09 Transcription Available


Valerie Kloosterman, a devout Christian and third-generation healthcare professional, served her community as a Physician Assistant for 17 years. In 2021, University of Michigan Health introduced mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training that required participants to affirm statements Kloosterman believed conflicted with her religious convictions and medical judgment. After she requested a religious accommodation, hospital officials denied her request, criticized her beliefs, and ultimately terminated her employment.Kloosterman filed suit in federal court, asserting Title VII and constitutional claims. While the court allowed her core claims to move forward, it later granted the hospital’s motion to compel arbitration. Kloosterman appealed, and in August 2025, the Sixth Circuit sided with her, ruling that the hospital had defaulted on its arbitration rights after litigating for over a year. The court rejected what it called a “heads I win, tails you lose” strategy of reserving arbitration until after seeing how the case would unfold in court.Join Kevin Wynosky and Kayla Toney as they unpack the Sixth Circuit’s opinion and discuss its broader implications for employment law and religious accommodations.Featuring:Kevin Wynosky, Associate Counsel, Clement & Murphy(Moderator) Kayla Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute

The Republican Professor
In Memory Of My Dad Mark Mather of Littleton, Colorado -- More Why Gorsuch Is Wrong In Bostock 2020

The Republican Professor

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 24, 2025 105:26


This episode of TRP Podcast is dedicated to my dad Mark Mather of Littleton, Colorado, who died 24 Sept 2008 while I was on my way to teach Political and Social Philosophy (Phil M03) at Moorpark College in California. The time stamps for my dad are at 43:35 and following. The rest is about why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 6 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- a real hoot. Part 6: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover the rest of Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court. We'll the Republican dissenting opinions next time. Part 6. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Standpoint with Gabe Groisman
US DOJ's Leo Terrell Says “No University Is Prepared For The Crackdown That's Coming…”

Standpoint with Gabe Groisman

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 17, 2025 23:01


Gabe interviews Leo Terrell, veteran civil rights attorney, Fox News commentator and now senior advisor at the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi.Terrell pulls back the curtain on the federal government's 24/7 battle to protect Jewish Americans from rising antisemitism on college campuses, in workplaces and in the streets. From Title VI and Title VII enforcement to hate crime prosecutions, Terrell explains how the DOJ is using every legal tool to hold universities, institutions and individuals accountable. He reveals why President Trump's executive order on campus antisemitism was a turning point, how the Biden administration let cases stall and why only aggressive enforcement can guarantee real change.Terrell also shares why the struggle to protect Jewish Americans matters for all Americans, drawing on his own experience as a Black attorney and civil rights advocate, and honoring the historic alliance between Black and Jewish communities.

The Modern People Leader
255 - DEI's New Reality: Yemi Akisanya (Head of Justice, Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion, Axon)

The Modern People Leader

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2025 69:07


Yemi Akisanya, Head of JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) at Axon, joined us on The Modern People Leader. We talked about how the DEI conversation is evolving post-2020, why quotas are being replaced with performance-aligned strategies, and how Axon is making inclusion measurable and mission-critical.---- Sponsor Links:

The Republican Professor
For Uncle Tom Luckey of Humbolt, Tennessee -- More Why Gorsuch Is Wrong In Bostock v. Clayton County

The Republican Professor

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 21, 2025 83:31


This episode of TRP Podcast is dedicated to Uncle Tom Luckey of Humbolt, Tennessee. Today is his funeral at Antioch Baptist Church in Humbolt, not far from the farm on which he grew up and worked his entire life. The time stamps for Uncle Tom comments are as follows: 1) at the beginning, 2) minute 42-43, 3) the one hour mark, 4) and at the very ending few minutes. The rest is about why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 5 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- a real hoot. Part 5: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral III.A , and stop at his III.B. We'll cover his III.B next time. Part 5. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Statecraft
Four Ways to Fix Government HR

Statecraft

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 21, 2025 63:02


Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

#SistersInLaw
239: OpinionPalooza

#SistersInLaw

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 7, 2025 69:13


Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt & Mini Tote at politicon.com/merch Joyce Vance hosts #SistersInLaw to break down the upcoming cases on the Supreme Court docket, focusing on their review of cases under Title VII, the pernicious effects of taking too long to issue rulings on critical issues in the Trump era, and the concept of DIG (dismissed as improvidently granted).  Then, the #Sisters explain how EMTLA is protecting women from the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, the ongoing challenges faced by healthcare providers, and if the executive branch has gone too far.  They also challenge the legality of Trump's resurrected travel bans and highlight the importance of diversity in the success of our country. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky #SistersInLaw Spin-off Shows Are Here! Check out Jill's New Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts Check out Kim's New Politicon Podcast: Justice By Design Register for Barb's 6/3 book talk in New York (with Loretta Lynch!) Get Barb's book, Attack From Within, coming out in paperback! Joyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available for pre-order!  Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  Get More From The #Sisters: From Joyce- Five Questions with Dara Kass, Emergency Room Physician and Women's Rights Activist Please Support This Week's Sponsors HexClad: Find your forever cookware @hexclad and get 10% off at hexclad.com/SISTERS! #hexcladpartner OneSkin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code SISTERS at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod Laundry Sauce:  Make laundry day the best day of the week!  Get 20% off your entire order @LaundrySauce with code SISTERS at https://laundrysauce.com/SISTERS #laundrysaucepod HoneyLove: Save 20% Off HoneyLove by going to honeylove.com/SISTERS! #honeylovepod Get More From The #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable” Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTube Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast Barb McQuade: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America

Verdict with Ted Cruz
BONUS: Daily Review With Clay Travis and Buck Sexton - Jun 05 2025

Verdict with Ted Cruz

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 5, 2025 62:21 Transcription Available


Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four Thursday takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Trump's Call with XI Trump’s recent call with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Buck breaks down the administration’s efforts to renegotiate trade terms, particularly around rare earth materials, and praises Trump’s strategic clarity and leadership—drawing a sharp contrast with the previous Biden administration’s perceived indecisiveness and lack of coherent China policy. Buck also explores the evolving dynamic between President Trump and Elon Musk, noting some recent friction but expressing hope that their shared goals will keep the relationship productive. He uses this moment to underscore the importance of unity among influential figures who support American innovation and economic strength. CBP Senior Advisor, Ron Vitiello Immigration and border security. Ron Vitiello, Senior Advisor to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Vitello details the dramatic improvements at the southern border under Trump’s leadership, including a 90%+ drop in illegal crossings, increased prosecutions, and the deployment of 10,000 troops. He credits this success to strong leadership, clear policy enforcement, and international cooperation with Mexico and Canada. Vitiello also updates listeners on the status of the border wall, revealing that over 100 miles have been constructed using remaining funds from Trump’s first term, with plans for 700 additional miles underway. He emphasizes how the administration’s use of tariffs has pressured neighboring countries to step up their border enforcement, contributing to a significant reduction in fentanyl trafficking and cartel activity. Buck passionately defends ICE and Border Patrol agents, pushing back against political attacks and media narratives that undermine their work. He highlights the dangerous conditions these agents face and the critical role they play in protecting American communities from cartel violence and illegal immigration. Identity Politics Obsession Buck critiques a controversial ruling by a Biden-appointed federal judge in Colorado, who blocked the deportation of the family of a convicted terrorist. He warns of the dangers of judicial overreach and the erosion of executive authority, especially when lower court judges act as de facto policymakers. A major segment of the hour focuses on the unraveling credibility of former Biden administration allies. Buck calls out CNN’s Jake Tapper for attempting to rebrand himself after years of defending the Biden presidency, accusing him of opportunism. He also dissects the political pivot of former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who recently announced her departure from the Democratic Party. Buck argues that her appointment was driven by DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) priorities rather than qualifications, and he critiques the media’s double standards in covering her tenure. A landmark Supreme Court decision that reaffirms the illegality of reverse discrimination. Buck explains how the unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, confirms that all Americans—regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation—are equally protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He frames this as a major blow to DEI policies and a win for merit-based hiring. Bad Blood between Musk and Trump? Buck addresses a growing rift between President Trump and Elon Musk. He analyzes their recent public spat over government spending and policy disagreements, while emphasizing Trump’s history of reconciliation and strategic alliances. Buck suggests that despite current tensions, the relationship may recover, as both figures remain central to the MAGA movement. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.