ReportWire

Tag: discrimination

  • Affirmative Action Fast Facts | CNN

    Affirmative Action Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here is some background information about affirmative action as well as a few notable court cases.

    Affirmative action policies focus on improving opportunities for groups of people, like women and minorities, who have been historically excluded in United States’ society. The initial emphasis was on education and employment. President John F. Kennedy was the first president to use the term in an executive order.

    Supporters argue that affirmative action is necessary to ensure racial and gender diversity in education and employment. Critics state that it is unfair and causes reverse discrimination.

    Racial quotas are considered unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

    The state of Texas replaced its affirmative action plan with a percentage plan that guarantees the top 10% of high-school graduates a spot in any state university in Texas. California and Florida have similar programs.

    1954 – The US Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, rules that the “separate but equal” doctrine violates the Constitution.

    1961 – President Kennedy creates the Council on Equal Opportunity in an executive order. This ensures that federal contractors hire people regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

    1964 – The Civil Rights Act renders discrimination illegal in the workplace.

    1978 – In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a notable reverse discrimination case, the Supreme Court rules that colleges cannot use racial quotas because it violates the Equal Protection Clause. As one factor for admission, however, race can be used.

    1995 – The University of Michigan rejects the college application of Jennifer Gratz, a top high school student in suburban Detroit who is white.

    October 14, 1997 – Gratz v. Bollinger, et al., is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. The University of Michigan is sued by white students, including Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, who claim the undergraduate and law school affirmative action policies using race and/or gender as a factor in admissions is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    December 3, 1997 – A similar case, Grutter v. Bollinger, is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. Barbara Grutter, denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School, claims that other applicants, with lower test scores and grades, were given an unfair advantage due to race.

    December 2000 – The judge in the Gratz v. Bollinger case rules that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy does not violate the standards set by the Supreme Court.

    March 2001 – The judge in the Grutter v. Bollinger case rules the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy is unconstitutional.

    December 2001 – The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals in both University of Michigan cases.

    May 14, 2002 – The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the district court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.

    January 17, 2003 – The administration of President George W. Bush files a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court, opposing the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program.

    April 1, 2003 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the two cases. US Solicitor General Theodore Olson offers arguments in support of the plaintiffs.

    June 23, 2003 – The Supreme Court rules on Grutter v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan Law School may give preferential treatment to minorities during the admissions process. The Court upholds the law school policy by a vote of five to four.

    June 23, 2003 – In Gratz v. Bollinger, the undergraduate policy in which a point system gave specific “weight” to minority applicants is overturned six to three.

    December 22, 2003 – The Supreme Court rules that race can be a factor in universities’ admission programs but it cannot be an overriding factor. This decision affects the Grutter and Gratz cases.

    November 7, 2006 – The Michigan electorate strikes down affirmative action by approving a proposition barring affirmative action in public education, employment, or contracting.

    January 31, 2007 – After the Supreme Court sends the case back to district court; the case is dismissed. Gratz and Hamacher settle for $10,000 in administrative costs, but do not receive damages.

    2008 – Abigail Noel Fisher, a white woman, sues the University of Texas. She argues that the university should not use race as a factor in admission policies that favor African-American and Hispanic applicants over whites and Asian-Americans.

    July 1, 2011 – An appeals court overturns Michigan’s 2006 ban on the use of race and/or gender as a factor in admissions or hiring practices.

    November 15, 2012 – The US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals throws out Michigan’s 2006 ban on affirmative action in college admissions and public hiring, declaring it unconstitutional.

    June 24, 2013 – The Supreme Court sends the University of Texas case back to the lower court for further review without ruling.

    October 15, 2013 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case concerning Michigan’s 2006 law on affirmative action.

    April 22, 2014 – In a six to two ruling, the Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban of using racial criteria in college admissions.

    July 15, 2014 – The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholds the use of race by the University of Texas as a factor in undergraduate admissions to promote diversity on campus. The vote is two to one.

    November 17, 2014 – Students for Fair Admissions sues Harvard University, alleging Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian-Americans. Students for Fair Admissions is run by Edward Blum, a conservative advocate, who sought Asian-Americans rejected by Harvard.

    December 9, 2015 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the University of Texas case regarding race as a factor in admissions policies.

    June 23, 2016 – The US Supreme Court upholds the Affirmative Action program by a vote of four to three with Justice Elena Kagan taking no part in the consideration. The ruling allows the limited use of affirmative action policies by schools.

    October 15, 2018 – The lawsuit against Harvard filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions goes to trial.

    February 2019 – Texas Tech University enters an agreement with the Department of Education to stop considering race and/or national origin as a factor in its admissions process, concluding a 14-year-long investigation into the school’s use of affirmative action.

    October 1, 2019 – US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs upholds Harvard’s admissions process in the Students for Fair Admissions case, ruling that while Harvard’s admissions process is “not perfect,” she would not “dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely because it could do better.”

    November 12, 2020 – A Boston-based US appeals court rejects an appeal brought by the Students for Fair Admissions group.

    January 24, 2022 – The US Supreme Court announces it will reconsider race-based affirmative action in college admissions. The justices will hear challenges to policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that use students’ race among many criteria to decide who should gain a coveted place in an entering class. On June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court says colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis for granting admission.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jurors award $11.5 million to former LAPD K9 handler who claimed discrimination over Samoan heritage

    Jurors award $11.5 million to former LAPD K9 handler who claimed discrimination over Samoan heritage

    [ad_1]

    A jury this week awarded $11.5 million to a former Los Angeles police K-9 handler who sued the city alleging that his supervisors retaliated and discriminated against him in part because of his Samoan ancestry.

    The officer, Mark Sauvao — pronounced “su-VOW” — alleged he was unfairly punished after he reported some of his colleagues had called him names such as “cannibal” and “barefoot coconut tree-climber.” One supervisor also reportedly referred to him as being Tongan; Sauvao took the comment as an affront given the bitter early history of war and enslavement between Samoa and Tonga.

    Sauvao, who is still with the department, also alleged that officers spread false rumors that he tried extorting fellow K-9 handlers by refusing to train them unless they gave him their overtime hours.

    The city can still challenge the size of the jury award.

    From 2005 to 2017, Sauvao was assigned to the department’s elite bomb detection K-9 unit. The 30-year LAPD veteran said his troubles began several years after his promotion to dog trainer, which came with extra pay and benefits.

    After learning of the rumors about him, Sauvao said, he demanded that the unit’s commander, Lt. Raymond Garvin, intervene and launch an investigation into the officers spreading them. Neither happened, he alleged.

    Another colleague testified in a deposition that Garvin relayed the overtime allegations against Sauvao to other officers at a roll call held at a nearby bagel shop. Someone in the group accused Sauvao of being the “ringleader” of a faction within the K-9 unit that called itself the “P.M.-Watch Mafia,” according to the testimony. Sauvao denies these claims.

    Garvin previously filed his own lawsuit against the city alleging that a department higher-up conspired to kick him out of the unit, which led to a $700,000 settlement.

    Sauvao said he eventually brought the matter up to Capt. Kathryn Meek of the Emergency Services Division, which oversees the K-9 unit and the bomb squad. Instead of investigating his reports, Sauvao said, internal affairs detectives showed up to search his locker several months later, which he believed was in retaliation for making his earlier complaints.

    Sauvao said his request to contact a police union representative after the search was denied.

    He was later ordered to undergo psychiatric testing and eventually transferred to a less desirable assignment that caused him to be separated from his police K-9 named Pistol, according to the lawsuit.

    Sauvao’s attorney, Matthew McNicholas, said the award was the latest he has won in cases involving members of that K-9 unit. Two other cases from around 2008 led to jury awards of $3.6 million and $2.2 million, respectively, he said. That the same unit continues to have problems 15 years later suggests a lack of oversight, he said.

    “It tells me that command continues to do what it wants and that unless somebody like me digs in, they get away with it,” McNicholas said. “Ninety-eight percent of the department are hard-working people that just go to work, do their jobs and go home; the unfortunate thing is that the other 2% have a lot of power.”

    The city attorney’s office didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment, and an LAPD spokeswoman said the department would not discuss the case.

    Sauvao’s claims were similar to those of another K-9 handler who worked in the unit at the time, Alfredo Franco, who also sued the city for discrimination and retaliation he reportedly faced after standing up for Sauvao.

    Several of Sauvao’s former colleagues testified on his benefit in depositions filed in the case, with one saying he had an “unblemished” reputation and another describing the respect he commanded within the niche community of police K-9 trainers nationally.

    [ad_2]

    Libor Jany

    Source link

  • Peoria teacher says school district targeted them for being transgender

    Peoria teacher says school district targeted them for being transgender

    [ad_1]

    A Peoria schoolteacher’s email to fellow staff about supporting transgender students led to a campaign of harassment and discrimination against the teacher, according to a new lawsuit. River Chunnui is a trans and nonbinary special education teacher at Desert Harbor Elementary School…

    [ad_2]

    TJ L’Heureux

    Source link

  • Discrimination lawsuit brought by transgender athlete sent back to Minnesota trial court

    Discrimination lawsuit brought by transgender athlete sent back to Minnesota trial court

    [ad_1]

    A Minnesota appeals court has sent the lawsuit brought by a transgender athlete back to a trial court to determine whether she was illegally denied entry into women’s competitions because of her gender identity.

    JayCee Cooper, a transgender woman, sued USA Powerlifting in 2021 after the organization denied her 2018 request for participation. She alleged the organization violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act, an anti-discrimination law which includes gender identity.

    Last year, a district court judge found that USA Powerlifting had discriminated against Cooper. USA Powerlifting appealed, and Cooper cross-appealed. In its lengthy Monday decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, reversed and sent back parts of the case.

    Judge Matthew Johnson wrote: “The circumstantial evidence on which Cooper relies, when viewed in a light most favorable to her, is sufficient to allow a fact-finder to draw inferences and thereby find that USAPL excluded Cooper from its competitions because of her sexual orientation (i.e., transgender status).”

    Gender Justice Legal Director Jess Braverman, an attorney for Cooper, said, “We agree that it’s illegal to discriminate against transgender people in Minnesota, but we think it’s crystal clear that that’s what USA Powerlifting did in this case, so we don’t agree with the court’s ultimate conclusion that the case needs to go back for a trial, and we’re currently weighing all of our options.”

    Cooper could ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision, or go back to the lower court to keep litigating the case, Braverman said.

    Ansis Viksnins, USA Powerlifting’s lead attorney, welcomed the decision as having “corrected some of the mistakes” made by the lower court and has given their side an opportunity “to tell our side of the story” to a jury.

    “USA Powerlifting did not exclude Ms. Cooper because of her gender identity,” Viksnins said. “USA Powerlifting excluded her from competing in the women’s division because of her physiology. She was born biologically male and went through puberty as a male, and as a result, she has significant strength advantages over other people who would be competing in the women’s division.”

    Cooper asked USA Powerlifting for a “therapeutic-use exemption” to take spironolactone, a medicine prescribed to treat her gender dysphoria, “but JayCee was denied because she’s transgender,” Braverman said.

    She filed a complaint in 2019 with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, but withdrew it before reaching a decision. The department filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit in support of Cooper, Braverman said.

    In schools and private clubs across the country, transgender people’s participation in sports has become a contentious issue. Many Republican-led states have banned transgender people from participating in high school and collegiate sports.

    Last week, a group of college athletes, including swimmer Riley Gaines, sued the NCAA, alleging the organization violated their Title IX rights by allowing Lia Thomas, who is a transgender woman, to compete in the 2022 national championships.

    [ad_2]

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link

  • Former Tesla worker settles discrimination case, ending appeals over lowered $3.2 million verdict

    Former Tesla worker settles discrimination case, ending appeals over lowered $3.2 million verdict

    [ad_1]

    SAN FRANCISCO — Tesla and a Black man who worked at the company’s California factory have settled a long-running discrimination case that drew attention to the electric vehicle maker’s treatment of minorities.

    Owen Diaz, who was awarded nearly $3.2 million by a federal jury last April, reached a “final, binding settlement agreement that fully resolves all claims,” according to a document filed Friday with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

    The document, which gave no details of the agreement, said both parties agree that the matter has been resolved and the case against the company run by Elon Musk can be dismissed.

    Messages were left Saturday seeking details from Tesla lawyers and from Lawrence Organ, Diaz’s attorney.

    The April verdict was the second one reached in Diaz’s case seeking to hold Tesla liable for allowing him to be subjected to racial epithets and other abuses during his brief tenure at the Fremont, California, factory run by the pioneering automaker.

    But the eight-person jury in the latest trial, which lasted five days, arrived at a dramatically lower damages number than the $137 million Diaz won in his first trial in 2021. U.S. District Judge William Orrick reduced that award to $15 million, prompting Diaz and his lawyers to seek a new trial rather than accept the lower amount.

    In November, Organ filed a notice that Diaz would appeal the $3.2 million verdict, and Tesla filed a notice of cross-appeal.

    The case, which dates back to 2017, centers on allegations that Tesla didn’t take action to stop a racist culture at the factory located about 40 miles (65 kilometers) southeast of San Francisco. Diaz alleged he was called the “n-word” more than 30 times, shown racist cartoons and told to “go back to Africa” during his roughly nine-month tenure at Tesla that ended in 2016.

    The same Tesla plant is in the crosshairs of a racial discrimination case brought by California regulators. Tesla has adamantly denied the allegations made in state court and lashed back by accusing regulators of abusing their authority. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a similar complaint in September.

    Musk, Tesla’s CEO and largest shareholder, moved the company’s headquarters from Silicon Valley to Austin, Texas, in 2021, partly because of tensions with various California agencies over practices at the Fremont factory.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at some of the most important cases decided by the US Supreme Court since 1789.

    1803 – Marbury v. Madison
    This decision established the system of checks and balances and the power of the Supreme Court within the federal government.

    Situation: Federalist William Marbury and many others were appointed to positions by outgoing President John Adams. The appointments were not finalized before the new Secretary of State James Madison took office, and Madison chose not to honor them. Marbury and the others invoked an Act of Congress and sued to get their appointed positions.

    The Court decided against Marbury 6-0.

    Historical significance: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” It was the first time the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that had been passed by Congress.

    1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford
    This decision established that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not protected under the US Constitution.

    Situation: Dred Scott and his wife Harriet sued for their freedom in Missouri, a slave state, after having lived with their owner, an Army surgeon, in the free Territory of Wisconsin.

    The Court decided against Scott 7-2.

    Historical significance: The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, where Congress had prohibited slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned later with the adoption of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1868, granting citizenship to all born in the United States.

    1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson
    This decision established the rule of segregation, separate but equal.

    Situation: While attempting to test the constitutionality of the Separate Car Law in Louisiana, Homer Plessy, a man of 1/8 African descent, sat in the train car for whites instead of the blacks-only train car and was arrested.

    The Court decided against Plessy 7-1.

    Historical significance: Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote, “The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… if the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.” The Court gave merit to the “Jim Crow” system. Plessy was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In January 2022 Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards granted a posthumous pardon to Homer Plessy. The pardon comes after the Louisiana Board of Pardons voted unanimously in November 2021 in favor of a pardon for Plessy, who died in his 60s in 1925.

    1954 – Brown v. Board of Education
    This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and granted equal protection under the law.

    Situation: Segregation of the public school systems in the United States was addressed when cases in Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware and Virginia were all decided together under Brown v. Board of Education. Third-grader Linda Brown was denied admission to the white school a few blocks from her home and was forced to attend the blacks-only school a mile away.

    The Court decided in favor of Brown unanimously.

    Historical significance: Racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    1963 – Gideon v. Wainwright
    This decision guarantees the right to counsel.

    Situation: Clarence Earl Gideon was forced to defend himself when he requested a lawyer from a Florida court and was refused. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for breaking and entering.

    The Court decided in favor of Gideon unanimously.

    Historical significance: Ensures the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

    1964 – New York Times v. Sullivan
    This decision upheld the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

    Situation: The New York Times and four African-American ministers were sued for libel by Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan claimed a full-page ad in the Times discussing the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr., and his efforts toward voter registration and integration in Montgomery were defamatory against him. Alabama’s libel law did not require Sullivan to prove harm since the ad did contain factual errors. He was awarded $500,000.

    The Court decided against Sullivan unanimously.

    Historical significance: The First Amendment protects free speech and publication of all statements about public officials made without actual malice.

    1966 – Miranda v. Arizona
    The decision established the rights of suspects against self-incrimination.

    Situation: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping after he confessed, while in police custody, without benefit of counsel or knowledge of his constitutional right to remain silent.

    The court decided in favor of Miranda 5-4.

    Historical significance: Upon arrest and/or questioning, all suspects are given some form of their constitutional rights – “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

    1973 – Roe v. Wade
    This decision expanded privacy rights to include a woman’s right to choose pregnancy or abortion.

    Situation: “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), single and living in Texas, did not want to continue her third pregnancy. Under Texas law, she could not legally obtain an abortion.

    The Court decided in favor of Roe 7-2.

    Historical significance: Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have the right to choose between pregnancy and abortion.

    1974 – United States v. Nixon
    This decision established that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified.

    Situation: President Richard Nixon’s taped conversations from 1971 onward were the object of subpoenas by both the special prosecutor and those under indictment in the Watergate scandal. The president claimed immunity from subpoena under executive privilege.

    The Court decided against Nixon 8-0.

    Historical significance: The president is not above the law. After the Court ruled on July 24, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8.

    1978 – Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke
    This decision ruled that race cannot be the only factor in college admissions.

    Situation: Allan Bakke had twice applied for and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was white, male and 35 years old. He claimed under California’s affirmative action plan, minorities with lower grades and test scores were admitted to the medical school when he was not, therefore his denial of admission was based solely on race.

    The Court decided in Bakke’s favor, 5-4.

    Historical significance: Affirmative action is approved by the Court and schools may use race as an admissions factor. However, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment works both ways in the case of affirmative action; race cannot be the only factor in the admissions process.

    2012 – National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al

    Situation: The constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama.

    The Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act.

    Historical significance: The ruling upholds the law’s central provision – a requirement that all people have health insurance or pay a penalty.

    2013 – United States v. Windsor
    This decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprived same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.

    Situation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by New York state, where they lived. Upon Spyer’s death in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes, because their marriage was not recognized by federal law.

    The court voted 5-4 in favor of Windsor.

    Historical significance: The court strikes down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that legally married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits.

    2015 – King et al, v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al

    Situation: This case was about determining whether or not the portion of the Affordable Care Act which says subsidies would be available only to those who purchase insurance on exchanges “established by the state” referred to the individual states.

    The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

    Historical significance: The court rules that the Affordable Care Act federal tax credits for eligible Americans are available in all 50 states, regardless of whether the states have their own health care exchanges.

    2015 – Obergefell et al, v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.

    Situation: Multiple lower courts had struck down state same-sex marriage bans. There were 37 states allowing gay marriage before the issue went to the Supreme Court.

    The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Obergefell et al.

    Historical significance: The court rules that states cannot ban same-sex marriage and must recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.

    2016 – Fisher v. University of Texas

    Situation: Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas after her admission application was rejected in 2008. She claimed it was because she is white and that she was being treated differently than some less-qualified minority students who were accepted. In 2013 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.

    The Court ruled 4-3 in favor of the University of Texas. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.

    Historical Significance: The court rules that taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.

    2020 – Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

    Situation: Gerald Bostock filed a lawsuit against Clayton County for discrimination based on his sexual orientation after he was terminated for “conduct unbecoming of its employees,” shortly after he began participating in a gay softball league. Two other consolidated cases were also argued on the same day.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that being fired “merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Historical Significance: Federal anti-bias law now protects people who face job loss and/or discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    2022 – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

    Situation: Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, passed in 2018 and which greatly restricts abortion after 15 weeks, is blocked by two federal courts, holding that it is in direct violation of Supreme Court precedent legalizing abortion nationwide prior to viability, which can occur at around 23-24 weeks of pregnancy, and that in an “unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability.” The court said states may “regulate abortion procedures prior to viability” so long as they do not ban abortion. “The law at issue is a ban,” the court held. 

    Mississippi appeals the decision to the Supreme Court.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Samuel Alito states that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start…Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

    In a joint dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan heavily criticized the majority, closing: “With sorrow – for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection – we dissent.”

    Historical Significance: The ruling overturns Roe v. Wade and there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion, leaving abortion rights to be determined by states.

    1944 – Korematsu v. United States – The Court ruled Executive Order 9066, internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is legal, 6-3 for the United States.

    1961 – Mapp v. Ohio – “Fruit of the poisonous tree,” evidence obtained through an illegal search, cannot be used at trial, 6-3 for Mapp.

    1967 – Loving v. Virginia – Prohibition against interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional, 9-0 for Loving.

    1968 – Terry v. Ohio – Stop and frisk, under certain circumstances, does not violate the Constitution. The Court upholds Terry’s conviction and rules 8-1 that it is not unconstitutional for police to stop and frisk individuals without probable cause for an arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur.

    2008 – District of Columbia v. Heller – The Second Amendment does protect the individual’s right to bear arms, 5-4 for Heller.

    2010 – Citizens United v. FEC – The Court rules corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment’s right to free speech, 5-4 for Citizens United.

    2023 – Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard together with Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina – Colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis in admissions. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Roberts, claims the court is not expressly overturning prior cases authorizing race-based affirmative action and suggests that how race has affected an applicant’s life can still be part of how their application is considered.

    2024 – Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al – The Court rules former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado in a decision that follows months of debate over whether Trump violated the “insurrectionist clause” included in the 14th Amendment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • AI pervades everyday life with almost no oversight. States scramble to catch up

    AI pervades everyday life with almost no oversight. States scramble to catch up

    [ad_1]

    DENVER — While artificial intelligence made headlines with ChatGPT, behind the scenes, the technology has quietly pervaded everyday life — screening job resumes, rental apartment applications, and even determining medical care in some cases.

    While a number of AI systems have been found to discriminate, tipping the scales in favor of certain races, genders or incomes, there’s scant government oversight.

    Lawmakers in at least seven states are taking big legislative swings to regulate bias in artificial intelligence, filling a void left by Congress’ inaction. These proposals are some of the first steps in a decades-long discussion over balancing the benefits of this nebulous new technology with the widely documented risks.

    “AI does in fact affect every part of your life whether you know it or not,” said Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a Brown University professor who co-authored the White House’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.

    “Now, you wouldn’t care if they all worked fine. But they don’t.”

    Success or failure will depend on lawmakers working through complex problems while negotiating with an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars and growing at a speed best measured in lightyears.

    Last year, only about a dozen of the nearly 200 AI-related bills introduced in statehouses were passed into law, according to BSA The Software Alliance, which advocates on behalf of software companies.

    Those bills, along with the over 400 AI-related bills being debated this year, were largely aimed at regulating smaller slices of AI. That includes nearly 200 targeting deepfakes, including proposals to bar pornographic deepfakes, like those of Taylor Swift that flooded social media. Others are trying to rein in chatbots, such as ChatGPT, to ensure they don’t cough up instructions to make a bomb, for example.

    Those are separate from the seven state bills that would apply across industries to regulate AI discrimination — one of the technology’s most perverse and complex problems — being debated from California to Connecticut.

    Those who study AI’s penchant to discriminate say states are already behind in establishing guardrails. The use of AI to make consequential decisions — what the bills call “automated decision tools” — is pervasive but largely hidden.

    It’s estimated as many as 83% of employers use algorithms to help in hiring; that’s 99% for Fortune 500 companies, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    Yet the majority of Americans are unaware that these tools are being used, polling from Pew Research shows, let alone whether the systems are biased.

    An AI can learn bias through the data it’s trained on, typically historical data that can hold a Trojan Horse of past discrimination.

    Amazon scuttled its hiring algorithm project after it was found to favor male applicants nearly a decade ago. The AI was trained to assess new resumes by learning from past resumes — largely male applicants. While the algorithm didn’t know the applicants’ genders, it still downgraded resumes with the word “women’s” or that listed women’s colleges, in part because they were not represented in the historical data it learned from.

    “If you are letting the AI learn from decisions that existing managers have historically made, and if those decisions have historically favored some people and disfavored others, then that’s what the technology will learn,” said Christine Webber, the attorney in a class-action lawsuit alleging that an AI system scoring rental applicants discriminated against those who were Black or Hispanic.

    Court documents describe one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, Mary Louis, a Black woman, applied to rent an apartment in Massachusetts and received a cryptic response: “The third-party service we utilize to screen all prospective tenants has denied your tenancy.”

    When Louis submitted two landlord references to show she’d paid rent early or on time for 16 years, court records say, she received another reply: “Unfortunately, we do not accept appeals and cannot override the outcome of the Tenant Screening.”

    That lack of transparency and accountability is, in part, what the bills are targeting, following the lead of California’s failed proposal last year — the first comprehensive attempt at regulating AI bias in the private sector.

    Under the bills, companies using these automated decision tools would have to do “impact assessments,” including descriptions of how AI figures into a decision, the data collected and an analysis of the risks of discrimination, along with an explanation of the company’s safeguards. Depending on the bill, those assessments would be submitted to the state or regulators could request them.

    Some of the bills would also require companies to tell customers that an AI will be used in making a decision, and allow them to opt out, with certain caveats.

    Craig Albright, senior vice president of U.S. government relations at BSA, the industry lobbying group, said its members are generally in favor of some steps being proposed, such as impact assessments.

    “The technology moves faster than the law, but there are actually benefits for the law catching up. Because then (companies) understand what their responsibilities are, consumers can have greater trust in the technology,” Albright said.

    But it’s been a lackluster start for legislation. A bill in Washington state has already floundered in committee, and a California proposal introduced in 2023, which many of the current proposals are modeled off of, also died.

    California Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan has revamped her legislation that failed last year with the support of some tech companies, such as Workday and Microsoft, after dropping a requirement that companies routinely submit their impact assessments. Other states where bills are, or are expected to be, introduced are Colorado, Rhode Island, Illinois, Connecticut, Virginia and Vermont.

    While these bills are a step in the right direction, said Venkatasubramanian of Brown University, the impact assessments and their ability to catch bias remain vague. Without greater access to the reports — which many of the bills limit — it’s also hard to know whether a person has been discriminated against by an AI.

    A more intensive but accurate way to identify discrimination would be to require bias audits — tests to determine whether an AI is discriminating or not — and to make the results public. That’s where the industry pushes back, arguing that would expose trade secrets.

    Requirements to routinely test an AI system aren’t in most of the legislative proposals, nearly all of which still have a long road ahead. Still, it’s the start of lawmakers and voters wrestling with what’s becoming, and will remain, an ever-present technology.

    “It covers everything in your life. Just by virtue of that you should care,” said Venkatasubramanian.

    ——-

    Associated Press reporter Trân Nguyễn in Sacramento, California, contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump keeps making incendiary statements. His campaign says that won’t change.

    Trump keeps making incendiary statements. His campaign says that won’t change.

    [ad_1]

    By JILL COLVIN and BILL BARROW (Associated Press)

    GREENSBORO, N.C. — He’s argued his four criminal indictments and mug shot bolstered his support among Black voters who see him as a victim of discrimination just like them.

    He’s compared himself to Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who died in an Arctic prison imprisoned by Vladimir Putin, and suggested that he is a political dissident, too.

    And in nearly every public appearance, he repeats falsehoods about the election he lost.

    Candidates on the verge of winning their parties’ nominations generally massage their messaging and moderate positions that may energize hardcore primary voters but are less appealing to a broader audience. In political terms, they “pivot.”

    Not Donald Trump. The former president is instead doubling down on often-incendiary rhetoric that offends wide swaths of voters, seeming to be doing little to rein in his most irascible and oftentimes self-defeating instincts. That’s even as some of his most loyal allies have suggested he shift his focus and tone down rhetoric that risks offending independent voters and people outside his base.

    “Donald Trump is Donald Trump. That’s not going to change,” said senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita. “Our job is not to remake Donald Trump.”

    LaCivita and other top campaign officials instead say their role is to provide the organization “to amplify and to force project” Trump’s message.

    The campaign, he said, had already assumed a general election posture before voting began, running ads attacking President Joe Biden before the Iowa caucuses. So while Trump is now talking less about his last remaining GOP rival, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, his campaign is focused on building out a general election infrastructure as it turns its focus from early voting states to November battlegrounds.

    That includes efforts to take over the Republican National Committee, with plans to consolidate the party’s and campaign’s fundraising, political operations, communications and research operations. LaCivita is in line to become the RNC’s chief operating officer while retaining his role on the campaign.

    “The campaign’s pivot,” LaCivita said, “is just a realization that we’ve already secured what we need to win. That manifests itself in not only the messaging but the mechanics.” He said to expect “more of the same” after Trump clinches the nomination, which is expected later this month.

    [ad_2]

    The Associated Press

    Source link

  • ACLU sues Children’s Hospital Colorado for halting adult gender-affirming surgeries

    ACLU sues Children’s Hospital Colorado for halting adult gender-affirming surgeries

    [ad_1]

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado alleges Children’s Hospital Colorado is discriminating against transgender patients by refusing to perform surgeries it offers to cisgender patients with other conditions.

    The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Denver District Court, also states the hospital is discriminating on the basis of disability, because gender dysphoria — distress when a person’s sense of their gender doesn’t align with physical characteristics — is a medical condition.

    The ACLU filed it on behalf of an 18-year-old Denver patient who was on track to receive gender-affirming surgery before the hospital discontinued that service.

    The main reason young cisgender men seek chest reconstruction is if they developed feminine-appearing breasts because of hormonal imbalances or medication side effects, according to the lawsuit. The hospital also sometimes performs breast reduction surgery on young women who have excessive chest tissue that causes pain, it said.

    The patient, who is identified in the lawsuit by the pseudonym Caden Kent, started receiving care at Children’s for mental health concerns when he was 16. He was diagnosed with gender dysphoria a few months later and had undergone about eight months of assessment before determining he was a candidate for surgery once he turned 18.

    In July, the hospital announced it would no longer offer chest reconstruction surgery for transgender patients, though they could still receive other gender-affirming treatment, including counseling, puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The hospital had only offered surgery to patients who were at least 18.

    The hospital stated it had received an unusual number of referrals for gender-affirming surgery as programs shut down in other states, and that it didn’t shut down the program because of threats. It came at a time when children’s hospitals were scrubbing references to transgender care from their websites, though, with at least 21 removing information in 2022. A search on the hospital’s website for its TRUE Center for Gender Diversity no longer turns up any results.

    According to the lawsuit, Kent chose to undergo surgery at Children’s because he received other care there, and hoped to recover from the surgery before leaving for college in the fall. Other surgical providers who accept his family’s insurance are booked up, meaning his parents will have to pay out-of-pocket for him to undergo the surgery in that time frame. Kent had resorted to chest-binding to ease his dysphoria, but found himself withdrawing from others when binding became too painful and he couldn’t otherwise hide the breast tissue, it said.

    [ad_2]

    Meg Wingerter

    Source link

  • Colorado civil rights attorney Kevin Williams, who fought to improve lives of people with disabilities, dies at 57

    Colorado civil rights attorney Kevin Williams, who fought to improve lives of people with disabilities, dies at 57

    [ad_1]

    Colorado civil rights attorney Kevin Williams died this week after 26 years of fighting to improve the lives of people with disabilities. He was 57.

    Williams died Tuesday after a short illness, according to colleagues at the Denver-based Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, where he launched the legal program in 1997 upon graduation from law school.

    A quadriplegic paralyzed from his chest down following a car crash at age 19, Williams steadily increased access for disabled people by filing lawsuits — pressing for enforcement under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and the Fair Housing Act.

    He began this work as a third-year law student at the University of Denver. Shortly before his graduation, he sued his law school. The issue was compliance with the ADA. He prevailed, leading to required improvements, including a wheelchair-accessible graduation venue.

    Often serving as the plaintiff, Williams repeated that feat again and again, expanding access for Coloradans with disabilities in stores, restaurants, public transit systems, theaters, arenas and travel pathways around the state. For example, his litigation compelled the operators of Red Rocks Amphitheatre to provide accessible parking, seating and ticketing.

    He also led other lawyers into disability rights work.

    Williams grew up in the suburbs of Cleveland.  He made Colorado his home in 1990, the year President George H.W. Bush signed the ADA into law. He enjoyed drives in the mountains, attending concerts and visiting local breweries and distilleries.

    Friends this week remembered him as passionate in his pursuit of civil rights.

    “Kevin was contemplative, thorough and certain not to leave any stone unturned, especially in litigation,” said Andrew Montoya, who worked in the coalition’s legal program as an assistant and then was inspired to attend law school.

    “Even seemingly mundane legal issues could occupy hours of lively discussion ranging from interpretive case law to contemporary and historical politics to litigation strategy to the meaning of life, and back again,” Montoya said. “His passion for civil rights, both in general and specifically those of people with disabilities, clearly animated his work, both in the courtroom and in the rest of the world.”

    He also had a knack for making light of difficulties. Friends recalled his adaptation of the Beatles’ “Let It Be” — a rendition that he titled “Let Us Pee.” (“When I find myself in times of trouble; The bathroom door is two-foot-three; Whisper words of wisdom; Let us pee, let us pee.”

    “He was intense, passionate, focused and very analytical. What kept him motivated was seeing people with disabilities face discrimination and knowing that the laws that are supposed to protect us are being violated,” said Julie Reiskin, co-executive director of the coalition.

    “What bothered him was the blatant violation of the law, especially by those who should know better, such as courts and lawyers that made excuses rather than working to fix the problem.”

    Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    Bruce Finley

    Source link

  • A former TikTok executive sues the company, alleging gender and age discrimination

    A former TikTok executive sues the company, alleging gender and age discrimination

    [ad_1]

    A former TikTok executive has filed a lawsuit against the social media platform, alleging she was retaliated against and fired from her position because the company’s owners in China determined she “lacked the docility and meekness” required of female employees.

    Katie Puris, who was the Global Head of Brand & Creative at TikTok, alleged in a lawsuit filed this week in a Manhattan federal court that she was fired in 2022 after making internal complaints about gender and age discrimination linked to what she called a preference among company executives for hiring young people.

    According to the complaint, Puris also reported an incident of sexual harassment at an off-site TikTok event, which she says the company didn’t respond to appropriately and led her to miss a TikTok event that the alleged harasser was expected to attend.

    Both TikTok and its parent company ByteDance in Beijing, which is listed as a defendant, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In the lawsuit, Puris’ attorneys claim she was given positive performance reviews after joining TikTok in late 2019 and was eventually invited to participate in bi-weekly meetings with ByteDance’s chairman Lidong Zhang the following year.

    The lawsuit claims Zhang was displeased with the presentations Puris gave “because she celebrated her team’s successes and achievements, which he felt was inappropriate because he believes that women should always remain humble and express modesty.” Puris alleges the company eventually began micromanaging her team and recommending their projects for cancellation.

    Furthermore, the complaint states during a leadership meeting in 2021 where Puris was in attendance, Yiming Zhang, ByteDance’s CEO at the time, said he would rather hire a young inexperienced person because older people are “less willing to change, less innovative and slower.”

    The lawsuit says Puris, who was nearing 50 at the time, expressed her concerns to the head of global human resources at TikTok. The company attributed her firing to “performance reasons,” the complaint said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DOJ: First National Bank discriminated against Black, Latino borrowers in N.C.

    DOJ: First National Bank discriminated against Black, Latino borrowers in N.C.

    [ad_1]

    The Justice Department says First National Bank discriminated against Black and Latino homebuyers in North Carolina for a period of at least four years, the latest in a long list of banks who have been caught redlining

    NEW YORK — First National Bank of Pennsylvania discriminated against Black and Latino homebuyers in North Carolina for a period of at least four years, the Justice Department said Monday, the latest in a long list of banks who have been caught redlining.

    The Justice Department said FNB will pay $13.5 million to settle the redlining charges, of which the bulk will go into a fund to help subsidize loans for Black and Latino borrowers in Charlotte and Winston-Salem, two housing markets where the DOJ found discrimination.

    In its complaint, the DOJ alleges that First National closed branches in majority-minority neighborhoods, failed to provide mortgage services to Black and Latino potential borrowers, and ignored entire neighborhoods for potential lending. The DOJ found that lenders of similar size and scope to First National did two to four times as much lending to minority borrowers between 2017 and 2021 as First National.

    The case comes from when FNB bought Yadkin Bank, a regional bank in the Carolinas, in 2017. While FNB says the bad behavior happened at Yadkin before the acquisition, the DOJ said that any bank that buys another bank should be held accountable for the acquired bank’s actions.

    “The playing field isn’t level, and that is not what we want for the people of North Carolina,” said Josh Stein, North Carolina’s Attorney General.

    This is the 13th redlining settlement that the Biden Administration has brought against banks since 2021. Under Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Justice Department has created a Redlining Taskforce to focus on racial discrimination in financial services in a way that few administrations have done so in the past.

    The DOJ brought the largest redlining lawsuit in history in 2023 against Los Angeles-based City National Bank, which was also found to have discriminated against Black and Latino communities over a similar time period, from 2017 to 2020.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cyprus president makes government ministers sign a pledge not to tolerate sexual harassment

    Cyprus president makes government ministers sign a pledge not to tolerate sexual harassment

    [ad_1]

    NICOSIA, Cyprus — Cyprus’ president on Friday required all government ministers to sign a “zero tolerance” declaration on sexist behavior and sexual harassment among employees and anyone visiting a government office.

    Cyprus already has stringent laws against sexual harassment and sexism in the workplace, but it’s the first time that ministers had to sign such a declaration in what Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides called an “institutional commitment” to eliminating such behavior in government.

    Cyprus ranks a lowly 22nd of 27 countries in the European Union in terms of gender equality, scoring 57.3 out of 100, according to the European Institute for Gender Equality.

    All ministers, deputy ministers and commissioners signed the declaration during a ceremony at the presidential palace. Christodoulides said that he expected all his subordinates to implement the declaration.

    “Through our behavior, our stance and approach, it is us who must first and foremost stand as an example,” Christodoulides said.

    A father of four daughters, Christodoulides has made gender equality a key policy objective for his nearly year-old administration. He said his government is already working to “dismantle whichever gender bias discrimination that takes us years back.”

    Cyprus’ Gender Equality Commissioner Josie Christodoulou said that the declaration formally embeds the issue of gender in all levels of government.

    “The ultimate goal is to create an environment allowing for a healthy society and economy, equal for all,” Christodoulou said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nikki Haley has called out prejudice but rejected talk of systemic racism throughout her career

    Nikki Haley has called out prejudice but rejected talk of systemic racism throughout her career

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBIA, S.C. — Four years after South Carolina removed the Confederate battle flag from its Statehouse grounds, Nikki Haley offered two separate explanations of the flag’s meaning in less than a week.

    Haley, the state’s governor when the flag was pulled in 2015 from its place of honor in Columbia, said in a 2019 interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck that the man who shot and killed eight Black churchgoers in Charleston — murders that were the impetus for the flag’s lowering — had “hijacked” a symbol that many people took to stand for “service and sacrifice and heritage.” Two days later, she wrote in the Washington Post, “Everyone knows the flag has always been a symbol of slavery, discrimination and hate for many people.”

    The two messages capture Haley’s sometimes contradictory messages on race. Throughout her career, the South Carolina-born daughter of Indian immigrants has generally called out acts of individual prejudice and the people responsible. But Haley, now a Republican presidential candidate, has avoided denouncing society or groups of people as racist.

    As the GOP primary race moves to South Carolina and its Feb. 24 contest, Haley is trying to cut into former President Donald Trump’s advantage. He has repeatedly attacked adversaries throughout his career with racist language, trying to appeal to as many voters as possible without alienating conservatives who reject the idea that systemic racism exists in the United States.

    But Haley’s approach has drawn bipartisan criticism at times, particularly after a December town hall when Haley refused to say slavery had been a cause of the Civil War. She later walked back those remarks, saying that “of course the Civil War was about slavery.”

    Haley was pushed for more answers on her feelings about race when she was interviewed Wednesday on “The Breakfast Club,” a nationally syndicated hip hop morning radio show on which presidential candidates and other politicians have discussed issues of race.

    Asked about the 2015 shooting at Charleston’s Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, Haley told co-host Charlamagne tha God that the national media “came in and wanted to define” the event and “wanted to make it about racism.” Haley acknowledged, after being pressed, that the killings were “motivated” by racism. Dylann Roof, a white man, was convicted and sentenced to death.

    The Haley campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

    Haley and Trump are competing for votes both along South Carolina’s rapidly growing coast with its booming aerospace and defense industries and in the rural swaths of a state where the Civil War began more than 150 years ago. Some in South Carolina still venerate the Confederate cause and play down the fact that Southern political leaders wanted to secede to keep slavery intact, as well as the lasting legacy of official federal and state discrimination against Black people.

    Haley, who was Trump’s U.N. ambassador, has described facing prejudice in her upbringing in rural Bamberg.

    “My parents never wanted us to think we lived in a racist country,” Haley told reporters recently. “I don’t want any brown, Black or other child thinking they live in a racist country. I want them to know they can do and be anything they want to be without anyone getting in the way.”

    Hajar Yazdiha, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California, argued that Haley was making a conscious choice to better appeal to conservatives.

    “Nikki Haley will strategically deploy her identity in one moment and not the next. So in one moment, she’s drawing out that history,” Yazdiha said. “She’s really claiming her ethnic identity and using it to tell a compelling story about the American dream. And then on the other, she’s minimizing it and erasing it and acting like it has no bearing on who she is.”

    At a recent Haley rally in North Charleston, Terry Holyfield said she applauded Haley’s push to bring down the Confederate flag. Holyfield said it was “the right thing to do at that time, and I applaud her for standing by her beliefs.”

    About the cause of the Civil War, Holyfield said she stood by her preferred candidate’s answer.

    “She answered that question intelligently and correctly,” Holyfield said. “Our government was different than it is now, and our Constitution was different, and she answered that question spot on.”

    People of color seeking high office have long faced disproportionate pressure to talk about race, especially before white audiences.

    During his own presidential bid last year, U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, a fellow South Carolinian and the only Black Republican in the chamber, often talked to all-white groups in Iowa about personal responsibility and how “we don’t have Black poverty or white poverty. We have poverty.” Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who is Hindu, was often challenged by Christians in Iowa about whether they worshipped the same God. Both Scott and Ramaswamy have dropped from the nomination contest and endorsed Trump.

    Haley sometimes ties her upbringing to politics, mentioning how her mother criticizes people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without permission because she herself immigrated legally. But Haley has also had to contend with attacks from Trump based on her ethnicity.

    Trump called Haley “Nimbra” on his social media site in a recent post. That was an apparent intentional misspelling of part of her birth name, Nimarata Nikki Randhawa. Haley has used her middle name, “Nikki,” since childhood.

    Trump also has promoted false conspiracy theories about whether Haley was eligible to run for president because she is the U.S.-born daughter of immigrants. Her birth in South Carolina makes her a natural-born citizen, one of three qualifications to hold the U.S. presidency. Trump’s promotion of this false claim echoes his “birther” rhetoric about Barack Obama, the nation’s first Black president.

    When asked by reporters whether Trump’s criticisms of her are racist, Haley has instead portrayed him as “desperate to stop our momentum,” using any means necessary to attack his opponents.

    “That’s what he does when he feels threatened. That’s what he does when he feels insecure,” Haley said during a town hall on CNN when asked about Trump’s false allegation that she was ineligible to be president. “I know that I am a threat. I know that’s why he’s doing that.”

    She often uses her own story as an example that the U.S. is fundamentally good.

    “We live in the best country in the world and we are a work in progress, and we’ve got a long way to go to fix all of our little kinks. But I truly believe our Founding Fathers had the best of intentions when they started, and we fixed it along the way,” Haley said as she struggled to make her point during a CNN town hall last month in New Hampshire, where host Jake Tapper asked her if, from a historical perspective, she believed that America had “never been a racist country.”

    Tapper argued that “America was founded institutionally on many racist precepts, including slavery.” Haley responded with a reference to the line that “all men are created equal,” but then finished her thought by saying that “the intent was everybody was going to be created equally.”

    In her memoirs and public appearances, Haley has often recounted experiencing discrimination during her childhood: bullying, comments about her ethnicity in school, being disqualified from a beauty pageant for being neither white nor Black. Her father, a professor at a historically Black university, was racially profiled at a farmer’s market.

    Haley says she dealt with racism through bridge-building.

    “This habit of finding the similarities and avoiding the differences became very natural to me over time,” she wrote in her 2012 memoir.

    During a 2014 visit to India, Haley spoke with an Indian news channel about her heritage and discrimination. Asked whether she felt the need to “disown” parts of her heritage to work in American politics, Haley said her background was core to her identity.

    “I’m very, very proud of being the daughter of Indian parents, and I talk about it because it’s something that’s very special to me,” Haley said. “It is who I am.”

    ___

    Associated Press writers Holly Ramer in Hollis, New Hampshire, and Noreen Nasir in New York contributed to this report.

    ___

    Meg Kinnard can be reached at http://twitter.com/MegKinnardAP and Matt Brown can be reached at http://twitter.com/mrbrownsir.

    ___

    This story was first published on Feb. 1, 2024. It was published again on Feb. 2, 2024, to make clear in the headline that Haley has rejected talk of systemic racism.



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden courts critical Black voters in South Carolina, decrying white supremacy

    Biden courts critical Black voters in South Carolina, decrying white supremacy

    [ad_1]

    Courting Black voters he needs to win reelection, President Biden on Monday denounced the “poison” of white supremacy in America, declaring at the site of a deadly racist church shooting in South Carolina that such ideology has no place in America, “not today, tomorrow or ever.”

    Mr. Biden spoke from the pulpit of Mother Emanuel AME Church, where in 2015 nine Black parishioners were shot to death by the White stranger who had invited to join their Bible study. The Democratic president’s speech followed his blunt remarks last Friday on the eve of the anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, in which he excoriated former President Donald Trump for “glorifying” rather than condemning political violence.

    At Mother Emanuel, Mr. Biden said “the word of God was pierced by bullets of hate, propelled not just by gunpowder, but by poison.”

    “White supremacy,” he said, the view by some whites that they are superior to everyone else is a “poison that for too long has haunted this nation. This has no place in America, not today, tomorrow or ever.”

    President Biden speaks at the historic Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston South Carolina on Jan. 8, 2024.
    President Biden speaks at the historic Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston South Carolina on Jan. 8, 2024.

    Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images


    The importance of South Carolina

    The speech was a grim way to kick off a presidential campaign, particularly for someone known for his unfailing optimism and belief that American achievements are limitless. But it’s a reflection of the emphasis Mr. Biden and his campaign are placing on energizing Black voters amid deepening concerns among Democrats that the president could lose support from this critical constituency heading into the election.

    It was South Carolina’s support for Mr. Biden that catapulted him to clinch the nomination during the Democratic primaries in 2020. The president has accurately attributed much of his success to Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who sat behind the president as he spoke on Monday. 

    A recent USA Today/Suffolk University poll found one in five Black voters who supported Mr. Biden in 2020 now say they will support a third-party candidate in November. A concern among Democrats is that Black voters might stay home in November. During a gaggle with reporters after the speech Monday, Biden campaign officials told reporters dismissed those polls and said voters would decide the election.

    The president’s campaign advisers and aides hoped the South Carolina visit would successfully lay out the stakes of the race in unequivocal terms three years after the cultural saturation of Trump’s words and actions while he was president. It’s a contrast they hope will be paramount to voters in 2024.

    Mr. Biden also used the speech, his second major campaign event of the year, to thank the state’s Black voters, recognizing their and Clyburn’s indispensable support in 2020.

    “I owe you,” he said.

    Mr. Biden’s speech was briefly interrupted when several people upset by his staunch support for Israel in its war against Hamas called out that if he really cared about lives lost he would call for a cease-fire in Gaza to help innocent Palestinians who are being killed under Israel’s bombardment. The chants of “cease-fire now” were drowned out by audience members chanting “four more years.”

    President Biden speaks at the historic Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, on Jan. 8, 2024.
    President Biden speaks at the historic Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, on Jan. 8, 2024.

    Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images


    The president stopped his speech to address their concerns. 

    “I understand the passion,” he told them. 

    The president also swiped at Republican presidential candidates Nikki Haley, a former governor of South Carolina, and Trump, though he did not name either one.

    Haley spent several days on the defensive for not explicitly naming slavery as the root cause of the Civil War when the question was posed to her by a participant at a campaign event. Mr. Biden called it a “lie” that the war was about states’ rights. 

    “So let me be clear, for those who don’t seem to know: Slavery was the cause of the Civil War. There’s no negotiation about that.”

    He also noted the scores of failed attempts by Trump in the courts to overturn the 2020 election in an attempt to hold onto power, as well as the former president’s embrace of the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

    “Let me say what others cannot: We must reject political violence in America. Always, not sometimes. Always. It’s never appropriate,” Mr. Biden said. He said “losers are taught to concede when they lose. And he’s a loser,” referring to Trump.

    The president delivered his first campaign speech of the year outside Valley Forget last Friday, Jan. 5, nearly three years to the date after Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol in an effort to prevent Mr. Biden’s ascent to the White House. 

    The Mother Emanuel shooting

    It was June 17, 2015, when a 21-year-old White man walked into the church and, intending to ignite a race war, shot and killed nine Black parishioners and wounded one more. Mr. Biden was vice president when he attended the memorial service in Charleston.

    The president’s aides and allies say the shootings are among the critical moments when the nation’s political divide started to sharpen and crack. Though Trump, the current Republican presidential front-runner, was not in office at the time and has called the shooting “horrible,” Mr. Biden is seeking to tie Trump’s current rhetoric to such violence.

    Two years after the attack, as the “Unite The Right” gathering of white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia, erupted in violent clashes with counterprotesters. Trump said merely that “there is blame on both sides.”

    Mr. Biden and his aides argue it’s all part of the same problem: Trump refused to condemn the actions of the white nationalists at that gathering. He’s repeatedly used rhetoric once used by Adolf Hitler to argue that immigrants entering the U.S. illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country,” yet insisted he had no idea that one of the world’s most reviled and infamous figures once used similar words.

    And Trump has continually repeated his false claims that he won the 2020 election, as well as his assertion that the Capitol rioters were patriotic. He’s called the long prison sentences handed down for some offenders — whom he calls “hostages” and were convicted of crimes like assaulting police officers or seditious conspiracy — “one of the saddest things.”

    At Mother Emanuel, Mr. Biden revisited themes from the Jan. 6 anniversary speech he delivered on Friday. He has repeatedly suggested that democracy itself is on the ballot, asking whether it is still “America’s sacred cause.”

    Trump, who faces 91 criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his loss to Mr. Biden and three other felony cases, argues that Mr. Biden and other top Democrats are themselves seeking to undermine democracy by using the legal system to thwart the campaign of the president’s chief rival.

    In an interview with The Associated Press before Mr. Biden’s appearance, Malcolm Graham, a brother of Charleston church victim Cynthia Graham-Hurd, said threat of racism and hate-fueled violence is part of a needed national conversation about race and American democracy.

    “Racism, hatred and discrimination continue to be the Achilles’ heel of America, of our nation,” said Graham, a city councilman in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Certainly, what happened to the Emanual Nine years ago is a visible example of that. What happened in Buffalo, years later, where people were killed under similar circumstances, shows that racism and discrimination are still real and it’s even in our politics.”

    Graham said it was shameful that some politicians still struggle to link the Civil War and slavery. He said he feels the Trump administration was a preview of what it’s like to have a new generation of unrepentant white nationalists in power.

    “As a nation, we can’t eradicate racism, hatred and discrimination, if it’s in the Oval Office,” he said. “We have to chart a different course.”

    After his speech, the president visited a restaurant called Hannibal’s Kitchen with Clyburn, greeting voters. He also recorded a local radio interview. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Founder of the American Family Association dies in Mississippi

    Founder of the American Family Association dies in Mississippi

    [ad_1]

    Donald Wildmon, the founder of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian advocacy group, has died

    TUPELO, Miss. — Donald Wildmon, the founder of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian advocacy group, has died, the organization announced Thursday.

    The 85-year-old Mississippi native died on Thursday from complications related to Lewy body dementia, an obituary published by WTVA-TV said. Wildmon died in Tupelo, Mississippi, the city where the American Family Association is based. The obituary referred to Wildmon as “one of the legendary leaders of American conservatism.”

    “His impressive legacy of Christian ministry will live on for many years to come,” Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, said on X, formerly known as Twitter.

    Wildmon founded the AFA, first known as the National Federation for Decency, in 1977 after working as a pastor for the United Methodist Church.

    Since its inception, the conservative advocacy group has launched campaigns and boycotts to pressure corporations to avoid supporting causes the group opposed, such as LGBT anti-discrimination measures.

    In 1991, Wildmon launched American Family Radio, which set up radio stations across the U.S. to spread the AFA’s message. Wildmon led the AFA for 33 years, the obituary said. He stepped down in 2010, and his son, Tim Wildmon, now leads the organization.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A timeline of Elijah McClain's death and the trials of the officers and paramedics accused of wrongdoing | CNN

    A timeline of Elijah McClain's death and the trials of the officers and paramedics accused of wrongdoing | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Three police officers and two paramedics have faced juries on charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide stemming from the 2019 death of Elijah McClain in Aurora, Colorado.

    But the path to court was anything but straightforward.

    McClain, a 23-year-old massage therapist, was confronted by police officers on August 24, 2019, after someone reported seeing a person wearing a ski mask who “looks sketchy.” After officers wrestled him to the ground and paramedics injected him with a potent sedative, McClain suffered a heart attack on the way to a hospital and died days later, authorities said.

    Prosecutors initially declined to bring charges in his death, but the case received renewed scrutiny following the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests in spring 2020. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis appointed a special prosecutor to reexamine the case, and in 2021 a grand jury indicted three officers and two paramedics in McClain’s death.

    The defendants have now faced juries in three separate trials in 2023, to different results. Officer Randy Roedema was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide and assault, while officers Jason Rosenblatt and Nathan Woodyard were acquitted of all charges. Paramedics Jeremy Cooper and Peter Cichuniec will soon learn their fate.

    Here’s a timeline of McClain’s death, the resulting investigation, the protests that brought renewed attention to the case and the criminal trials.

    Three White officers stopped McClain in Aurora on August 24, 2019, while he was walking home from a convenience store in the Denver suburb after 10:30 p.m., according to a police overview of the incident.

    Carrying iced tea in a plastic bag, McClain eventually was in a physical struggle with the officers after, police say, he resisted arrest.

    Early in the encounter, an officer told McClain to stop, and when McClain kept walking, two officers grabbed his arms, the overview reads. McClain says, “Let me go … I’m an introvert, please respect the boundaries that I am speaking,” according to body camera footage from one of the officers.

    After an officer asked him to cooperate so they could talk, McClain tells officers he had been trying to pause his music so he could hear them, and tells them to let him go, the overview reads.

    Eventually, one officer is heard telling another that McClain tried to grab his gun.

    All three officers tackled McClain to the ground, and Woodyard placed him in a carotid hold – in which an officer uses their biceps and forearm to cut off blood flow to a subject’s brain – police said in the overview document. McClain briefly became unconscious, and Woodyard released the hold, the document reads, citing the officers.

    Body camera video of the encounter shows McClain at some point saying he couldn’t breathe.

    Because the hold was used, department policy compelled the officers to call the fire department for help, authorities said. Aurora Fire Rescue paramedics arrived and saw McClain on the ground and resisting officers, the overview says.

    Paramedic Cooper diagnosed McClain with “excited delirium” and decided to inject him with the powerful sedative ketamine, the overview says.

    McClain suffered a heart attack on the way to a hospital, authorities said. Three days later, he was declared brain-dead and taken off life support.

    The Adams County coroner’s office submitted an autopsy report on November 7, stating the cause and manner of death were “undetermined.” The report cited the scene investigation and examination findings as factors leading to that conclusion.

    Roughly two weeks later, the Adams County district attorney, Dave Young, declined to file criminal charges against any of the first responders. In a letter to the Aurora police chief on November 22, Young referred to the undetermined cause of death as one of the factors.

    “The evidence does not support a conclusion that Mr. McClain’s death was the direct result of any particular action of any particular individual,” Young wrote. “Under the circumstances of this investigation, it is improbable for the prosecution to prove cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of twelve. Consequently, the evidence does not support the prosecution of a homicide.”

    Also on November 22, after the district attorney’s decision, Aurora police released the officers’ body camera videos.

    “We certainly recognize and understand that this has been an incredibly devastating and difficult process for them over these last several weeks,” then-Police Chief Nick Metz said.

    A police review board concluded that the use of force against McClain, including the carotid hold, “was within policy and consistent with training.”

    City officials announced on February 6 they would hire an independent expert to review the case.

    George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, was fatally restrained by police in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25. Bystander video of the encounter sets off outrage and leads to widespread protests, including in Aurora, under the Black Lives Matter movement.

    In early June, the three officers who confronted McClain were assigned to administrative duties, primarily due to safety concerns because police and city employees were receiving threats, a police spokesperson said.

    On June 9, Aurora police and city officials announced changes to police policies, including a ban on carotid holds.

    Ten days later, Gov. Polis signed police accountability legislation into law, requiring all officers to use activated body cameras or dashboard cameras during service calls or officer-initiated public interactions. The measure also barred officers from using chokeholds.

    Polis also signed an executive order appointing Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser to investigate McClain’s case, the governor announced on June 25. More than 2 million people had signed a petition urging officials to conduct a new investigation.

    Demonstrators carried a giant placard during protests on June 27, 2020, outside the police department in Aurora.

    On June 27, protesters in the Aurora area gathered on Highway 225, temporarily shutting it down in a demonstration calling for justice in McClain’s death.

    On June 30, the US attorney’s office for Colorado, the US Department of Justice’s civil rights division and the FBI’s Denver division announced they have been reviewing the case since 2019 for potential federal civil rights violations.

    Aurora police on July 3 fired two officers who they say snapped selfie photographs at McClain’s memorial site, located where he was killed, while they were on duty.

    Officer Rosenblatt also was fired, with police saying he received the photo in a text and replied, “ha ha,” and did not notify supervisors. The photos were taken on October 20, 2019.

    A third officer seen in the photos resigned days before a pre-disciplinary hearing, police said.

    On July 20, the Aurora City Council approved a resolution for an independent investigation of McClain’s death to proceed.

    A mural of Elijah McClain, painted by Thomas

    The McClain family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Aurora on August 11.

    “Aurora’s unconstitutional conduct on the night of August 24, 2019, is part of a larger custom, policy, and practice of racism and brutality, as reflected by its conduct both before and after its murder of Elijah McClain, a young Black man,” the lawsuit stated.

    On the same day, Aurora city officials announced the police department would undergo a “comprehensive review” by external experts on civil rights and public safety.

    Aurora city officials released a 157-page report on February 22, detailing the findings of the independent investigation it commissioned into McClain’s death.

    The report asserted that officers did not have the legal basis to stop, frisk or restrain McClain. It also criticized emergency medical responders’ decision to inject him with ketamine and rebuked the police department for failing to seriously question the officers after the death.

    01 elijah mcclain

    Elijah McClain’s mom has watched the bodycam video ‘over and over’

    Sheneen McClain, Elijah’s mother, cried while reading the report.

    “It was overwhelming knowing my son was innocent the entire time and just waiting on the facts and proof of it,” Sheneen McClain told CNN at the time. “My son’s name is cleared now. He’s no longer labeled a suspect. He is actually a victim.”

    Elijah McClain’s father said the report only confirmed what the family already knew. “The Aurora police and medics who murdered my son must be held accountable,” LaWayne Mosley said after the report’s release.

    In response to the report, city officials began work on establishing an independent monitor to scrutinize police discipline, Aurora City Manager Jim Twombly said.

    “I believe the investigative team has identified the issue that is at the root of the case: the failure of a system of accountability,” Twombly said after the report’s release.

    On September 1, the state attorney general announced a grand jury indicted officers Roedema, Rosenblatt and Woodyard and paramedics Cichuniec and Cooper.

    Each was charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide as part of a 32-count indictment.

    The five people charged in the case are (clockwise, from top left): Randy Roedema, Nathan Woodyard, Jeremy Cooper, Peter Cichuniec and Jason Rosenblatt.

    Roedema and Rosenblatt also were indicted on one count of assault and one count of crime of violence. Cooper and Cichuniec were further indicted on three counts of assault and six counts of crime of violence.

    “Our goal is to seek justice for Elijah McClain, for his family and friends and for our state,” Weiser, the state attorney general, said. “In so doing, we advance the rule of law and our commitment that everyone is accountable and equal under the law.”

    The charges brought McClain’s parents to tears. “I started crying because it’s been two years,” Sheneen McClain said. “It’s been a long journey.”

    “Nothing will bring back my son, but I am thankful that his killers will finally be held accountable,” Mosley, his father, said through the attorney’s release.

    On September 15, the Colorado attorney general’s office released a 112-page report that found the Aurora police had a pattern of practicing racially biased policing, excessive force, and had failed to record legally required information when interacting with the community. The report also found the police department used force against people of color almost 2.5 times more than against White people.

    The state investigation also revealed the fire department had a pattern and practice of administering ketamine illegally, the attorney general’s office said.

    The state attorney general’s office and the city of Aurora agreed November 16 on terms of a consent decree to address the issues raised in the office’s report two months earlier.

    On November 19, the city finalized an agreement to pay $15 million to McClain’s family to settle the federal civil rights lawsuit.

    The cause of death in McClain’s case was changed in light of evidence from the grand jury’s investigation, according to an amended autopsy report publicly released September 23.

    The initial autopsy report had said the cause of death was undetermined. But the amended report listed “complications of ketamine administration following forcible restraint” as the cause of death.

    The manner of death remained undetermined in the amended report.

    “Simply put, this dosage of ketamine was too much for this individual and it resulted in an overdose, even though the blood ketamine level was consistent with a ‘therapeutic’ concentration,” pathologist Dr. Stephen Cina wrote in the amended autopsy report. “I believe that Mr. McClain would most likely be alive but for the administration of ketamine.”

    Cina could not determine whether the carotid hold contributed to the death, but “I have seen no evidence that injuries inflicted by the police contributed,” he wrote.

    On September 20, Roedema and Rosenblatt, two of the officers who arrested McClain, stood trial on charges of manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and assault.

    Prosecutors said they used excessive force on McClain, failed to follow their training and misled paramedics about his health status. In contrast, defense attorneys placed blame on McClain for resisting arrest and on the paramedics who treated him.

    Roedema was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide and assault. Rosenblatt was acquitted of all charges.

    On October 16, the third officer, Woodyard, stood trial on charges of reckless manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Like in the earlier trial, prosecutors argued he used excessive force on McClain, while defense attorneys argued the force was necessary and blamed the paramedics.

    Woodyard was found not guilty on all charges.

    McClain’s mother Sheneen told CNN affiliate KUSA she no longer has faith in the justice system after Woodyard’s acquittal.

    “It lets us down, not just people of color, it lets down everybody,” she said. “They don’t do the right thing, they always do the bare minimum.”

    Cooper and Cichuniec, the paramedics who treated McClain, stood trial on charges of reckless manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

    Both paramedics testified they believed McClain was experiencing “excited delirium” during his confrontation with Aurora police officers, and their treatment protocol was to administer a ketamine dose they believed was safe and would not kill a person.

    Prosecutors said the paramedics “didn’t take any accountability for any single one of their actions” while testifying at their trial.

    “They both stood there while Elijah got worse and worse and did nothing,” Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson said. “They are both responsible.”

    Cooper and Cichuniec were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide Friday.

    Cichuniec was also found guilty of a second-degree unlawful administration of drugs assault charge.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Activision Blizzard to pay $54 million to settle California state workplace discrimination claims

    Activision Blizzard to pay $54 million to settle California state workplace discrimination claims

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — Activision Blizzard has agreed to pay about $54 million to settle discrimination claims brought by California’s civil rights agency on behalf of women employed by the video game maker.

    The settlement, which is subject to court approval, resolves allegations that the maker of Call of Duty, Overwatch, World of Warcraft and other video games “discriminated against women at the company, including denying promotion opportunities and paying them less than men for doing substantially similar work,” the California Civil Rights Department announced late Friday.

    Allegations of workplace discrimination helped drag down Activision’s stock price in 2021, paving the way for Microsoft’s eventual takeover bid in January 2022. The software giant, which owns the Xbox gaming system, closed its $69 billion deal to buy Activision in October after fending off global opposition from antitrust regulators and rivals.

    California’s civil rights agency sued Santa Monica-based Activision Blizzard in July 2021, alleging that female employees faced constant sexual harassment, that few women were named to leadership roles and that when they were, they earned less salary, incentive pay and total compensation than male peers.

    Employees spoke up about harassment and discrimination, signing petitions criticizing the company for its defensive reaction to the lawsuit and staging a walkout.

    Under the terms of the settlement, women who worked for the company between Oct. 12, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2020, either as hires or independent contractors, may be eligible for compensation. About $45.75 million of the settlement amount has been set aside for such payouts, the state agency said.

    Activision Blizzard also agreed to take steps to ensure “fair pay and promotion practices” at the company.

    “We appreciate the importance of the issues addressed in this agreement and we are dedicated to fully implementing all the new obligations we have assumed as part of it,” Activision Blizzard said in a statement Saturday.

    The company also noted that the California Civil Rights Department agreed to file an amended complaint that withdraws sexual harassment allegations.

    The settlement agreement declares that “no court or any independent investigation has substantiated any allegations” of systemic or widespread sexual harassment at Activision Blizzard, nor claims that the company’s board of directors and CEO acted improperly or ignored or tolerated a culture of harassment, retaliation or discrimination.

    In September 2021, Activision settled sexual harassment and discrimination claims brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, agreeing to create an $18 million fund to compensate people who were harassed or discriminated against.

    And earlier this year, the company agreed to pay $35 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it failed to maintain controls to collect and assess workplace complaints with regard to disclosure requirements and violated a federal whistleblower protection rule. In paying the settlement, Activision neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings and agreed to a cease-and-desist order.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Activision Blizzard to pay $55 million to settle California civil-rights lawsuit

    Activision Blizzard to pay $55 million to settle California civil-rights lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    Videogame maker Activision Blizzard has agreed to pay nearly $55 million to settle a California civil-rights lawsuit brought over complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination and pay disparities by women employees that helped trigger the company’s acquisition by Microsoft.

    The settlement, announced by the California Civil Rights Department on Friday evening, resolves the lawsuit filed against the “Call of Duty” videogame studio by the agency in 2021 over claims that it “discriminated against women at the company, including by denying promotion opportunities and paying them less than men for doing substantially similar work,” CRD said.

    The agreement, subject to court approval, will see Activision pay nearly $46 million into a settlement fund dedicated to compensating women employees and contract workers at the company, plus more than $9 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. Additionally, Activision will take steps “to help ensure fair pay and promotion practices at the company,” including retaining an independent consultant to evaluate its compensation and promotion policies.

    Yet the settlement also sees CRD withdraw its initial claims alleging a culture of widespread, systemic workplace sexual harassment at Activision, according to a copy of the agreement provided to MarketWatch. The document notes that the department is filing an amended complaint that removes the sexual-harassment allegations against the company and focuses on the gender-based pay and promotion claims.

    CRD made no note of its prior sexual-harassment claims against Activision in its announcement Friday. A spokesperson for the department said the statement “largely speaks for itself with respect to the historic nature of this more than $50 million settlement agreement, which will bring direct relief and compensation to women who were harmed by the company’s discriminatory practices.

    Representatives for Activision declined to comment.

    The Wall Street Journal first reported the news of the settlement Friday.

    The California agency’s complaint was one of several high-profile investigations by both state and federal regulators in recent years into alleged workplace misconduct at Activision and failures by its leadership to respond appropriately. 

    While Activision repeatedly denied the allegations, they ramped up pressure on the Santa Monica, Calif.-based company and its CEO, Bobby Kotick, and eventually led to a $68.7 billion takeover bid by Microsoft
    MSFT,
    +1.31%
    in January 2022. The acquisition closed this October after receiving approval by U.K. and E.U. antitrust regulators, though the U.S. Federal Trade Commission continues to challenge the deal in court. Kotick is expected to leave the company, which he led for more than three decades, at the end of this year.

    The settlement would be the second-largest ever for the California Civil Rights Department, according to the Journal, after its $100 million agreement with another Los Angeles-area videogame developer, Riot Games, to resolve gender-discrimination allegations in 2021. The agency had initially sought a much-larger settlement with Activision, the publication reported, citing how the state had estimated the company’s liability at nearly $1 billion to some 2,500 employees with potential claims.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News pushes back against reporter's suit claiming he was fired for challenging Jan. 6 coverage

    Fox News pushes back against reporter's suit claiming he was fired for challenging Jan. 6 coverage

    [ad_1]

    Fox News is pushing back against a former reporter’s lawsuit saying he was targeted and fired for challenging false claims about the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021

    ByLINDSAY WHITEHURST Associated Press

    December 8, 2023, 7:18 PM

    FILE – Rioters loyal to President Donald Trump stand on vehicles and the steps of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. Jason Donner, a former Fox News producer says in a lawsuit filed Monday, Nov. 13, 2023, he was targeted and fired for pushing back against false claims about the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Donner said he was part of a “purge” of employees who refused to report information that would please Trump and his supporters. Donner was inside the Capitol during the riot and pressed his complaints about the networks coverage for months(AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)

    The Associated Press

    WASHINGTON — Fox News pushed back Friday against a former reporter’s lawsuit saying he was targeted and fired for challenging false claims about the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    The network argued that Jason Donner had not shown he faced illegal discrimination. The nation’s capital bans discrimination based on political party membership or endorsement, but Donner hasn’t shown he joined a political party, nor that his bosses knew and fired him for it, Fox lawyers said.

    “That law does not protect employees of news media organizations based on their differences of opinion over reporting and commentary on matters of public concern,” Fox attorneys wrote.

    Donner said in his lawsuit he was a longtime Republican who affiliated with Democrats more recently.

    The network also questioned whether he had properly informed managers when taking sick time after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and whether he filed the lawsuit within the time allowed by the law.

    Donner’s lawsuit said he was fired in 2022 as part of a “purge” of employees who refused to only report information that would “appease” former President Donald Trump and his supporters. He had been inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and called to scream at the control room when he learned Fox News was referred to the rioters as peaceful, he wrote in his suit.

    [ad_2]

    Source link