Misleading title. The issue was that, in discrimination cases, lower courts started making majority groups (white people, straight people) provide extra evidence of discrimination than is usually required in order to win an employment discrimination case. All this decision did is clarified that, for discrimination cases, majority groups don’t need to provide extra evidence of discrimination—there isn’t a higher bar for majority groups. The ‘burden’ of evidence of discrimination is the same regardless of which group is claiming discrimination. The Supreme Court, in making this decision, didn’t decide any facts, they just instructed the lower court to look at the case again with this clarification in mind. The lower courts might still find she wasn’t subject to discrimination.
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
This lady probably didn't get a promotion because she has the kind of personal disposition that would cause her to sue for not getting a promotion. Who wouldn't just go get a different, better job elsewhere?
Without hearing the facts the plaintiff does really sound like a bitch. Entirely possible she was discriminated but getting demoted so a gay person could take your spot is really far-fetched.
She was busy at work asking everyone's bedroom habits.
“I want people to try and understand that we’re trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just for a white woman in Ohio.”
Riiiight.
as soon as she mentioned her race, we know what she really believes.
The justices, in a 9-0 ruling, threw out a lower court‘s decision...
Is it just me, or has there been an uptick in unanimous Supreme Court rulings lately? Could they be doing some behind-the-scenes vote trading in order to appear more unified in their dealings with the executive branch?
About 40% of the time they are unanimous. And it has been that way since at least when FDR appointed 8/9, probably longer. But people care about controversy more than consensus in their news.
That is just dog bites man vs man bites dog.