U. S. Supreme Court Issues Significant Rulings In Race And Age Discrimination, and The Voting Rights Act.
In the first case, a race discrimination case entitled CBOCS West Inc. Vs. Humphries, 06-1431 (2008), the Court held as follows:
A longstanding civil rights law, first enacted just after the Civil War, provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same rightin every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Rev. Stat. §1977, 42
U. S. C. §1981(a). The basic question before us is whether the provision encompasses a complaint of retaliation against a person who has complained about a violation of another person’s contract-related “right.” We conclude that it does.
In the second case involving age discrimination, Gomez-Perez Vs. Potter, 06-1321 (2008), the Court held as follows:
The question before us is whether a federal employee who is a victim of retaliation due to the filing of a complaint
of age discrimination may assert a claim under the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 (ADEA), as added, 88 Stat. 74, and amended, 29 U. S. C. §633a(a) (2000 ed., Supp. V). We hold that such a claim is authorized.
In the third and final case involving the Voting Rights Act, and a suspect state's "pre-clearance" requirements, the Court held as follows in Riley Vs. Kennedy, 07-77 (2008):
This case presents a novel question concerning §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The setting, in a nutshell: A covered State passed a law adopting a new election practice, obtained the pre clearance required by §5, and held an election. Soon thereafter, the law under which the election took place was invalidated by the State’s highest court on the ground that it violated a controlling provision of the State’s Constitution. The question presented: Must the State obtain fresh pre clearance in order to reinstate the election practice prevailing before enactment of the law struck down by the State’s Supreme Court? We hold that, for §5 purposes, the invalidated law never gained “force or effect.” Therefore, the State’s reversion to its prior practice did not rank as a “change” requiring pre clearance.
A longstanding civil rights law, first enacted just after the Civil War, provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same rightin every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Rev. Stat. §1977, 42
U. S. C. §1981(a). The basic question before us is whether the provision encompasses a complaint of retaliation against a person who has complained about a violation of another person’s contract-related “right.” We conclude that it does.
In the second case involving age discrimination, Gomez-Perez Vs. Potter, 06-1321 (2008), the Court held as follows:
The question before us is whether a federal employee who is a victim of retaliation due to the filing of a complaint
of age discrimination may assert a claim under the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 (ADEA), as added, 88 Stat. 74, and amended, 29 U. S. C. §633a(a) (2000 ed., Supp. V). We hold that such a claim is authorized.
In the third and final case involving the Voting Rights Act, and a suspect state's "pre-clearance" requirements, the Court held as follows in Riley Vs. Kennedy, 07-77 (2008):
This case presents a novel question concerning §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The setting, in a nutshell: A covered State passed a law adopting a new election practice, obtained the pre clearance required by §5, and held an election. Soon thereafter, the law under which the election took place was invalidated by the State’s highest court on the ground that it violated a controlling provision of the State’s Constitution. The question presented: Must the State obtain fresh pre clearance in order to reinstate the election practice prevailing before enactment of the law struck down by the State’s Supreme Court? We hold that, for §5 purposes, the invalidated law never gained “force or effect.” Therefore, the State’s reversion to its prior practice did not rank as a “change” requiring pre clearance.
Labels: Ageism, Constitutional Rights, Justice, Race, Racism, The Constitution, U. S. Supreme Court
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 5:46 PM
1 Comments:
Yes. It happens and rather frequently. However, the offenders often do not know that they are engaged in this activity. Inappropriate behavior and off-hand remarks will sneak up to bite you. As a corporate director for a fortune 500 company, I have been blindsided many times by disparaging remarks made by your management team? The managers don’t realize at the time that they are in a discrimination mode. I detail these likely events in my management book, Wingtips with Spurs. Usually they will ‘get it’ when their depositions start. When you hear the following phrases, stop the offender, offer some education, and hope to goodness no one else heard them. If it happens again with the same person, it may be time to sell the cow. The courts and juries will decide if the remarks are ‘stray comments’ or direct evidence of a discrimination mindset.
• “We need sharp, young people.”
• “We need people who can come in early and stay late.”
• “They’re dinosaurs.”
• “They’re too old to learn something new”
• “We want employees who are young, lean, and mean.”
• “They wouldn’t be able to keep up with the fast company
growth.”
• “We’re looking for longevity.”
• “We need some young blood in this department.”
If a manager allows a culture that tolerates remarks such as the ones above, then the manager will probably get what he or she is asking for. The great leader will remind management on a frequent basis that they should never forget silence is often the best answer. Michael L. Gooch, SPHR http://www.michaellgooch.com
Post a Comment
<< Home