Originally posted here:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
A new report from the Smoking Gun claims Rachel Dolezal—the Spokane woman who has lied for years about being African American— sued Howard University in 2002. According to court documents obtained by the site, Dolezal, who went by Rachel Moore at the time, sued the historically black college by alleging discrimination “based on race, pregnancy, family responsibilities and gender.” From the report:
She alleged that Smith and other school officials improperly blocked her appointment to a teaching assistant post, rejected her application for a post-graduate instructorship, and denied her scholarship aid while she was a student.
The court opinion also noted that Dolezal claimed that the university’s decision to remove some of her artworks from a February 2001 student exhibition was “motivated by a discriminatory purpose to favor African-American students over” her.
Two years later, a judge dismissed the lawsuit.
Earlier on Monday, Dolezal posted a letter on Facebook announcing her resignation as president of the Spokane, Washington chapter of the NAACP after the news broke that she had been pretending to be black for many years. The allegations, accompanied by her birth certificate, were made by her biological parents, both of whom are white.
Excerpt from –
Rachel Dolezal Sued Howard University for Racial Discrimination
Mother Jones
In a lawsuit filed against Facebook on Monday, former employee Chia Hong accused the company of gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and sex harassment.* She is represented by Lawless & Lawless, the same law firm representing Ellen Pao in the high-profile gender discrimination case against venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins. (And yes, Lawless really is the last name of the two sisters who head the firm.)
Hong, who worked as a product manager at Facebook until October 2013, alleges that she suffered from discrimination by her boss, Anil Wilson, and dozens of other coworkers during her three years at the company. She also claims that she was wrongfully terminated after complaining about the harassment and discrimination.
The complaint states that Facebook employment policies were “neutral on their face” but “resulted in a disparate impact” on Hong, due to her gender:
The harassment included, but was not limited to, ANIL WILSON regularly ignoring or belittling plaintiff’s professional opinions and input at group meetings in which she was the only woman or one of very few; asking plaintiff why she did not just stay home and take care of her child instead of having a career; admonishing plaintiff for taking one personal day per month to volunteer at her child’ s school, which was permitted under company policy; ordering plaintiff to organize parties and serve drinks to male colleagues, which was not a part of plaintiff’s job description and not something that was requested of males with whom she worked; and telling plaintiff he had heard she was an “order taker,” by which he meant that she did not exercise independent discretion in the execution of her job duties.
It also alleges racial discrimination against her:
The discrimination included, but was not limited to, plaintiff having her professional opinions belittled or ignored at group meetings in which she was one of the only employees of Chinese descent; plaintiff being told that she was not integrated into the team because she looks different and talks differently than other team members, and plaintiff being replaced by a less qualified, less experienced Indian male.
This latest case comes as various Silicon Valley companies are struggling to diversify their conspicuously white, male workforces. According to a report issued by Facebook last June, 69 percent of its employees are male—including 77 percent among senior staff and 85 percent among its tech workers. The report also found that Facebook’s overall workforce was 57 percent white and 34 percent Asian.
In a statement to TechCrunch on Wednesday about the lawsuit, a Facebook spokesperson refuted Hong’s allegations: “We work extremely hard on issues related to diversity, gender and equality, and we believe we’ve made progress. In this case we have substantive disagreements on the facts, and we believe the record shows the employee was treated fairly.”
Correction: The initial version of this post misstated the allegation as “sexual harassment.”
Link to article:
Facebook Is Being Sued for Gender and Racial Discrimination. Here’s Why.
Mother Jones
During the run-up to the Supreme Court oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the latest legal assault on Obamacare, the four people named as plaintiffs in the case were mysteriously absent from public view. They never made any public statements. They never appeared at any conferences. These four Virginia residents who were supposed to be victims of Obamacare were essentially invisible in the highly politicized case. And their lawyers had good reason to keep them under wraps: It’s unclear if any of them have been injured by Obamacare and truly have standing to sue. One of the four, Brenda Levy, even told Mother Jones she didn’t want the lawsuit to end up stripping millions of Americans of their health insurance, which is what will likely happen should the plaintiffs prevail.
But finally, today, after oral arguments in the case, one of the plaintiffs, Doug Hurst, appeared outside the Supreme Court with his lead counsel, Michael Carvin, and lawyers from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank that has propelled this lawsuit. CEI had promised that Hurst would speak. But he said nothing. He took no questions. Rather, his wife, Pam Trainor Hurst, read a prepared statement to the assembled reporters. Her comments were largely drowned out by protesters with bullhorns—anti-Obamacare protesters. But soon after, CEI released her statement.
She said:
Decisions made here in Washington directly affect middle-class families like ours, and we believe it’s time for those who have been hurt by Washington to take a stand—that’s why Doug joined the case. We never imagined we would end up at the Supreme Court, but that just shows how important this case is, not just for us, but for so many others around the country who are hurt by Obamacare.
There are millions of Americans who have lost their plans or their doctors. Or who, like Doug and I, are forced by the Internal Revenue Service to either buy insurance we don’t want or face a tax penalty. We want Americans to have options. We believe there is a better way to take care of the people who need help. But there is no reason to force millions of us to pay tax penalties if we don’t join a government program.
It seemed odd that Trainor Hurst was speaking, given she was not a party to the lawsuit. Where were the other plaintiffs? On this big day for the anti-Obamacare crusaders, it seemed, CEI was sticking to its strategy: Keep the plaintiffs out of sight.
View original article:
One of the Anti-Obamacare Plaintiffs Finally Appears in Public
Mother Jones
The Georgia Republican Party, and its chair, John Padgett, have already been sued once in the past year over allegations of racial discrimination and racial slurs. Now, Padgett, his wife, and the company he owns are being sued again, on the grounds that they frequently engaged in “bigoted, racist and sexist commentary” about the employees who work there, a possible violation of the federal Civil Rights Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The latest suit was filed by Vanessa Dewberry, a former manager at Southeast Ambulance Inc., a company owned and operated by Padgett. Dewberry, who is black, was usually the only person of color in higher-level meetings, the suit notes. That meant she was privy to the allegedly questionable comments of the predominately white management. In February 2014, Dewberry decided to record a meeting. What she heard became the basis of her lawsuit:
Padgett, talking about a black employee: “He’s not a goddamn doctor…he’s a black tech that’s supposed to know better.”
Padgett and others (including his wife, Mary) engaged in a conversation making fun of a female employee. “She’s the one that looks like a boy,” Padgett said. A male speaker interjected, “Nobody around the office knows what to refer to it.” Mary Padgett responded: “What is she? Is she a—is she—it’s a—if she’s a she.” According to Dewberry, John Padgett found the exchange humorous, and laughed during at mentions of the employee as “it.”
“As shocking as this type of unlawful ridicule of SEA employees was,” the suit states, “Ms. Dewberry recognized that it was typical of SEA meetings and was not likely to stop without some intervention.” Dewberry complained to Padgett and company HR director Michelle Hayes directly after the meeting, but her lawyers say no action was taken to address the complaint. Less than a week later, Padgett fired her. Dewberry is suing not only for racial discrimination and wrongful termination, but also for wages—her suit also alleges she was not fully paid for her work.
Padgett’s alleged bad behavior extended to his work as chairman of the state GOP, too. The earlier suit, filed in July 2014 by Padgett’s ex-assistant, Qiana Keith, is still pending. Keith alleges that she endured consistent racial discrimination and racial slurs while working at the Georgia Republican Party, including being ordered not to park in front of the party offices. State party lawyers deny Keith’s claims; attempts to reach Padgett for comment were unsuccessful, and SEA declined to comment. Padgett is a longtime conservative activist in Georgia, and was elected as chair in 2013 on a platform of “fighting the liberal media” and “building a new majority” by promoting diversity, according to a campaign ad.
Source:
Top State Republican Sued For “Bigoted, Racist, and Sexist” Comments
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
House Republicans finally filed their long-awaited lawsuit against President Obama today, and it actually contained a surprise:
The suit also challenges what it says is President Obama’s unlawful giveaway of roughly $175 billion to insurance companies under the law. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the administration will pay that amount to the companies over the next 10 years, though the funds have not been appropriated by Congress. The lawsuit argues that it is an unlawful transfer of funds.
….If the lawsuit is successful, poor people would not lose their health care, because the insurance companies would still be required to provide coverage — but without the help of the government subsidy, the companies might be forced to raise costs elsewhere. The subsidies reduce the co-payments, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs that consumers incur when they go to doctors and hospitals.
Long story short, it turns out there are two parts to the suit. The first part challenges Obama’s delay of the employer mandate, and it’s entirely symbolic. After all, it’s only a delay. Even if Republicans win, by the time the case makes it all the way through the court system it will be moot. The delay will be over by then and the employer mandate will be in place.
But this second part is unexpected. Republicans are arguing that a provision of the law called Cost Sharing Reduction wasn’t automatically funded, as were most parts of the law. The law authorizes CSR, but no appropriation was ever made, so it’s illegal to actually pay out these funds.
Do they have a case? This is a brand new allegation, so I don’t think anyone has yet had a chance to look into it. But if I had to guess, I’d say it’s probably about as specious as every other allegation against Obamacare. Unfortunately, though, that doesn’t mean the Supreme Court won’t uphold it. You never know these days. In the meantime, conservatives are likely to be dizzy with excitement over the whole thing since (a) it involves a clear constitutional question about appropriating funds, and (b) it would hurt poor people. That’s quite a twofer.
Of course, the suit still has to survive challenges to Congress’ standing to sue in the first place, and that might kill it before any court even begins to judge the merits of the case. Wait and see.
From:
Republicans Finally Sue Over Obamacare — And There’s Even a Surprise Included
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
If New Hampshire Republican Dan Innis wins his congressional race, he knows where to send the fruit basket: to the home of mortgage giant Peter T. Paul.
Before running for Congress, Innis served as dean of the University of New Hampshire’s business school, which was renamed for Paul after he donated $25 million. His campaign website touts major building projects he oversaw as dean—projects financed by Paul’s contribution. And Innis’ congressional run is getting a big-time boost from a brand new super-PAC founded and financed by Paul.
“Dan’s a friend,” says Paul, who lives in California. Paul is an alumnus of the University of New Hampshire, and he met Innis through his UNH philanthropy. “He’s the better candidate. He needs to get known.”
Innis, who is one of four candidates running in the Republican primary on September 9 to challenge Democratic Rep. Carol Shea Porter, is socially liberal and favors shrinking the government—exactly the type of politician Paul says he would like to see in Congress. In order to make that happen, Paul created a super-PAC, New Hampshire Priorities PAC, and financed it with $562,000. So far, $376,000 of that has gone into radio and TV ads supporting his friend. Innis himself has raised a little more than $338,000—about $150,000 less than his closest Republican opponent. With Paul in the mix, Innis is head and shoulders over his GOP competitors.
See original:
Meet the Risky Mortgage Pioneer Trying to Pay His Buddy’s Way Into Congress
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
A former staffer for the Georgia Republican Party has filed a lawsuit claiming that party officials discriminated against her because she’s black and subjected her to racist slurs and comments. In one case, she alleges, a colleague called her “the house nigger.”
Qiana Keith served as the executive assistant to Georgia GOP Chair John Padgett until she was fired in March, allegedly for complaining about racist treatment by fellow Republican Party staffers. Her lawsuit, which she filed July 8 in federal court, accuses the Georgia GOP and Padgett of “intentional and unlawful race discrimination” that culminated in her wrongful termination.
“Ms. Keith was terminated for consistently poor job performance,” Anne Lewis, the general counsel of the Georgia Republican Party told Mother Jones in a statement. “More than two months later, she contacted the Party through a lawyer and made claims of race discrimination and retaliation. We immediately undertook a full investigation of those claims and found that there was no merit to any of them. The Party and Chairman Padgett will vigorously defend themselves in court against these completely unfounded claims.”
According to Keith’s lawsuit, she was hired in June 2013 and “it soon became clear that Ms. Keith’s race set her apart from her co-workers, and she was treated differently throughout her employment. Keith was repeatedly…put in demeaning situations by her co-workers.”
One instance cited in the lawsuit occurred at the chairman’s annual dinner in 2013. At these events, Keith says, the chairman’s executive assistant is expected to attend as his “escort and aide.” The lawsuit alleges that “when Ms. Keith arrived, however, a party official had given the post to a white male.” The official, Margaret Poteet, the party’s finance director, allegedly refused to assign Keith to any official duties outside of cleaning up after the dinner.
When Keith complained about her treatment to Adam Pipkin, her direct superior, “he refused to listen to her,” the suit claims. Instead, Keith alleges, Pipkin chastised her for “seating a black member of the Republican Party at the head table with the Chairman.”
The lawsuit claims that Keith later heard Poteet complaining about her to Karen Hentschel, the party’s accounting director. “Don’t worry about her, she is just the house nigger,” Hentschel allegedly said.
View article:
Lawsuit: Former Georgia GOP Staffer Claims Party Officials Targeted Her With Racial Slurs
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Ben & Jerry’s pitched a tent at Tennessee music festival Bonnaroo this week, where they dished out free ice cream with a side of lobbying. Their new flavor, ‘Food Fight!’ was inspired by the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and consumers’ right to know what they’re eating. The ice cream brand has publicly supported the fight to GMO labeling on foods since its decision a year ago to start phasing out genetically modified foods from its products. So why is it still getting boycotted by organic-food activists?
The first victory in the fight for genetically modified food transparency came in Ben & Jerry’s home state of Vermont last month, when the state passed a law requiring food and drink manufacturers to label all genetically modified foods. The Grocers’ Manufacturers Association, a trade group that represents Monsanto, Pepsi-Co, and other big food companies, has sued Vermont as of last week over the new law and hopes to destroy legislation requiring food to be labeled with GMO stickers. In response to the lawsuit filed by the GMA, the Organic Consumers’ Association, a consumer protection and organic agriculture advocacy group, has renewed a 2013 boycott against the GMA and “traitor brands” whose parent companies are members. One of those “traitor brands” is Ben & Jerry’s, whose parent company, Unilever, is part of GMA.
Despite Ben & Jerry’s support for labeling laws and plan to phase out GMOs from its ingredients, the OCA won’t be amending its boycott list. “Any company that pays dues to the GMA is by virtue of its membership in the GMA, supporting the GMA’s anti-labeling campaigns, including the campaign against Vermont,” OCA representative tells Mother Jones. “We are asking brands like Ben & Jerry’s to pressure their parent companies to withdraw from the GMA.”
Christopher Miller, a Ben & Jerry’s representative, says that the ice cream manufacturer doesn’t deserve to be one of OCA’s banned brands, but acknowledges that “there is a role for everyone to play on the issues they care about.” Unilever owns more than 1,000 brands and holds a membership in the GMA, but when it acquired acquired Ben and Jerry’s in 2000 for $326 million, it promised to keep its hands off the brand’s social causes. Miller makes it clear that Ben & Jerry’s sides with Vermont in its ongoing fight against the GMA. “Anyone’s entitled to file suit,” he says. “But we believe that the law is legally defendable and sound. We think we’re going to win.” And Ben & Jerry’s will continue to support labeling bills as they spread through the states. “Our voice is important in this debate,” Miller says. “As a business, we can bring this to the mainstream audience.”
Link:
Food Activists Target Ben & Jerry’s Even Though It Supports GMO Labeling
The EPA is expected to let states decide how to clean up their power industries. ldphotoro/Shutterstock On June 2, the United States government will begin the single most important step it’s ever taken to fight climate change: limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, the country’s largest climate polluter. Some fear the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations will be catastrophic, a heavy-handed big-government overreach that will drive up the price of energy. Yet some energy policy experts say those misgivings are unfounded. Indeed, there’s good reason to think the regulations can succeed. Over the last decade, as federal climate efforts stagnated, some states pursued ambitious strategies of their own. They quietly put prices on greenhouse gases, harnessing market forces to cut carbon pollution. “We have a ton of evidence that states have already taken action,” said Sarah Hayes, a policy analyst at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, an energy industry think tank. These programs, she says, have for the most part been successful—one multi-state program has cut pollution from power plants by 40 percent—and could serve as models for meeting federally-mandated pollution cuts. In short, the future is already here—and it seems to work. Read the rest at Wired. This article is from: Here’s Why an Obama Plan to Regulate Carbon Could Work ; ;Related ArticlesWhite House Stresses Widespread Energy Progress Ahead of New Climate RuleGovernments Await Obama’s Move on Carbon to Gauge U.S. Climate EffortsPresident Said to Be Planning to Use Executive Authority on Carbon Rule ;
Original post:
Libros
