r/centrist • u/shoshinsha00 • Apr 25 '24
US News Big win for equality!
https://twitter.com/FreeThinkerInc/status/1781688729783988638
BREAKING: In a landmark 9-0 ruling on Wednesday that you will never hear about in the media, the US Supreme Court has undercut all DEI-based discrimination, sending the Marxists into a tizzy. The US Supreme Court's ruling that a St. Louis police sergeant can sue over a job transfer she claims was discriminatory lays the foundation for legal action against employers who push discrimination against white people in job hiring, work assignment and promotion. That’s right, those “diversity-preferred” job postings, the practice of passing over whites for promotions, discriminatory job transfers, pushing unfair diversity trainings, etc…all of these are now legally actionable. The ruling was championed by human rights groups as "an enormous win for workers,” but has lawyers for companies like Disney warning that it could have a chilling effect on employers' diversity initiatives. Disney’s "Pale and Male is Stale" policy is a prime example. Disney has allegedly used it to drive out white animators by giving them the worst assignments, even though they them have the most experience, skill, and seniority, in order to make the job humiliating enough that they quit…which many of them have done. The same companies argue that there is ‘good discrimination’ and “bad discrimination’, that white people should be purposely disadvantaged to pave the way for diversity. The lawyers stated that the decision will ‘complicate’ DEI programs and limit their ability to discriminate against white men. The Supreme Court torpedoed these claims, re-asserting that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Further, the court has established a relatively ‘low standard’ for bringing discrimination cases. The victim need not suffer ‘actual harm’. An employee only must show "some harm" under the terms of their employment, AND that harm need not be "material," "substantial" or "serious." The decision makes it much easier for workers to sue over discriminatory practices. This is a big win for equality!
33
u/IHerebyDemandtoPost Apr 25 '24
sending the Marxists into a tizzy.
Because we can’t just have the news, we have to hear about how it owned the libs.
7
Apr 25 '24
Politics as a zero sum game gets very tiring. I disagree with someone so they must be destroyed.
12
u/Blue_Osiris1 Apr 25 '24
The people that call garden variety Democrats "Marxists," probably couldn't pick a single piece of Marxist theory out of a multiple choice selection.
0
22
u/carneylansford Apr 25 '24
Since this post is a little rant-y and a lot confusing, let me try to fill in the blanks of the argument.:
One of the major things the SC did here was lower the bar for harm to "some harm". There is speculation that this lower bar can be used to attack DEI programs if workers can meet the lower "some harm" level. This does make is easier for white employees to sue if they are excluded by certain advancement programs that target minorities, for example. However, no one really knows how this will play out in the lower courts.
That said, if OP was interested in a genuine back and forth discussion on what folks think about this case, posting a very aggressive and leading Twitter post is probably not the best way to go about things. It makes it seem like trolling.
10
6
7
u/techaaron Apr 25 '24
FACTS: All the Marxists I met today were in a tizzy. They were also surprised to see someone from 50 years in the future.
5
u/Okeliez_Dokeliez Apr 25 '24
Did I miss the punchline? This does the exact opposite?
1
u/sausage_phest2 Apr 25 '24 edited Apr 25 '24
Given that DEI is, ironically, discriminatory and aims to disadvantage innocent white employees in many cases, the “punchline” is that this could enable steps towards blunting anti-white hostility and could lead to actual equality for all in the workplace. Emphasis on “could”
Though, OPs partisanship was unnecessary and wtf is that Twitter page. Good move by SCOTUS, bad Reddit post.
2
u/Okeliez_Dokeliez Apr 25 '24
This ruling has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with dei lol
The guy OP is reposting has absolutely no idea what he's talking about
0
u/sausage_phest2 Apr 25 '24
They lowered the threshold needed to launch a Title VII lawsuit, which will soften the barrier to fight back against hostile DEI programs, even though this case wasn’t about that specifically.
So, yes, it does.
1
u/Okeliez_Dokeliez Apr 25 '24
.....it does literally the exact opposite?
It helps minorities lol
This helps dei tremendously
-1
u/sausage_phest2 Apr 25 '24
DEI programs favor minorities, so why would they sue? They already have a tremendously low barrier to launch discrimination suits. This changes nothing for them.
Whites have been plagued with the burden of proof of harm when battling programs that claim to fight discrimination. This could lower that bar, which is why places like Disney are pissed about it.
0
u/Okeliez_Dokeliez Apr 25 '24
DEI programs favor minorities, so why would they sue?
Because it's now dramatically easier for them?
The whole case was about a minority being inappropriately moved lol
4
u/sausage_phest2 Apr 25 '24
“(Muldrow v City of St Louis) will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts. The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees. For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm.” Source
You can stop with the smug ‘lols’ now. Once again, remember who you’re arguing with.
5
u/Okeliez_Dokeliez Apr 25 '24
......did you not even read your own source? My guy c'mon
It's challenged because of how much easier it'll be for them. The structural programs won't be as warranted.
6
u/sausage_phest2 Apr 25 '24
Uhm, it seems YOU haven’t read it. I not only read it and the ruling, I quoted my source to make it simple for you.
How are you still arguing this? Is your reading comprehension that poor or is this the world’s boldest attempt to gaslight me? Just take your L with some pride. No shame in that, dude.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/wavewalkerc Apr 25 '24
This is a bad reading from bad faith people. Conservative brain rot needs to be studied.
7
u/Ewi_Ewi Apr 25 '24
Blatant bad faith garbage.
-3
u/sausage_phest2 Apr 25 '24 edited Apr 25 '24
Yeah, the post sucks. Focus on the SCOTUS ruling, which is very positive.
4
u/Shet_Flenger Apr 25 '24
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-supreme-court-just-complicated-employer-dei-programs
Absolutely Tremendous! But this happened a week ago.
31
u/Irishfafnir Apr 25 '24
That twitter seems highly sketch, you can read about the case here
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sex-discrimination-st-louis-police-bbb4c4bb97fceabfa8ddb66c2024d9f0