A fire chief says he battled Christian discrimination. Supreme Court declines to take his case
Show Caption
Hide Caption
SCOTUS ruling on 'reverse discrimination' civil rights case
The Supreme Court justices questioned whether an extra hurdle for people of "majority backgrounds" is required to prove discrimination.
WASHINGTON – Ronald Hittle was laid off as fire chief of Stockton, Calif., after facing allegations of misconduct, including an anonymous letter describing him as a 'corrupt, racist, lying, religious fanatic.' One of the issues that led to his termination: he had attended, with other managers, a church-sponsored summit for Christian leaders during work hours.
Hittle tried to sue, arguing he was fired because of his Christian religion, but lower courts said he didn't have a strong enough case to go to trial.
Hittle, though, contends the test the Supreme Court established more than 50 years ago for evaluating workplace discrimination allegations needs to be reexamined.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take his case, skirting a potential showdown over religion in in the workplace during a year that the Court is testing the limits of religion in schools, and religion-related tax exemptions.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have heard the appeal.
Thomas wrote that Hittle had plenty evidence of discriminatory intent, and his case would have allowed the court to offer clear guidance on how to determine when workplace discrimination cases can move forward.
More: Supreme Court appears likely to side with straight woman in `reverse discrimination' case
Leadership training at a Christian summit
Hittle was fired in 2011 after city investigator concluded Hittle lacked effectiveness and judgment, failed to report time off, engaged in favoritism and had attended with other managers a religious event while on the job, among other findings.
The event was a church-sponsored summit for Christian leaders, which Hittle said he went to because the city directed him to get leadership training.
Hittle argues his attendance at the Global Leadership Summit was the main reason he was fired and alleged the deputy city manager had accused him of being part of a 'Christian Coalition.'
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Hittle hadn't persuaded them that the city's stated reasons for firing him were a cover story. The court also said there wasn't enough evidence that his supervisors made discriminatory remarks.
Hittle said the appeals court incorrectly required him to prove the city's stated justifications were bogus.
'When an employer acts for a discriminatory reason, it cannot automatically avoid liability just because lawful reasons also motivated it,' his attorneys told the court.
More: 'Wolf in sheep's clothing'? How a USPS worker's fight over Sunday shifts could change your workplace.
The city says Hittle is mischaracterizing the appeals court's decision and there's no reason to reconsider the court's landmark 1973 decision, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, a 'settled touchstone of employment-discrimination law.'
'The City's reasons for terminating (Hittle) were well-documented and entirely appropriate for the Ninth Circuit to rely upon,' the city's lawyers told the court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
21 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Behind the biometric curtain: When border tech outpaces accountability
In an era where artificial intelligence and biometric surveillance are becoming the new frontiers of national security, a quiet struggle is unfolding—one not just of innovation, but of ethics, transparency, and trust. At the center of this unfolding narrative are companies like Travizory, a Swiss-based border tech startup, whose recent moves have sparked scrutiny from both industry peers and government watchdogs. Across the globe, from South America to the Indian Ocean, the implications of fast-tracked technology contracts are coming under the microscope. This is not just a story about software and security, it's a cautionary tale for every government, especially in Africa, navigating the allure of digital border solutions without adequate oversight. The Stakes in Kenya This question has come to the forefront in Kenya, where controversy surrounds the management of the country's eCitizen platform—a critical national digital portal that connects citizens and tourists to government services ranging from visa issuance to tax payments. At the center of the debate is Travizory that secured a contract to help digitize and manage parts of Kenya's travel authorization and border management ecosystem. The Travizory contract has created multiple risks: revenue leakage through foreign exchange spreads, personal data subject to Swiss rather than Kenyan privacy laws during the pilot period; and an opaque exit clause allowing Travizory to claim intellectual property indemnity fees if Kenya builds its own system. The issue, however, is not simply about foreign involvement, it is about the legal jurisdiction under which this data is being handled. Travizory's contract in Kenya has been in contention not only because it collected and allegedly withheld the gross revenues owed to the government of Kenya, but it has personal data subject to Swiss rather than Kenyan privacy laws during the pilot period. This revelation has sparked serious concern among digital rights advocates, policymakers, and civil society organizations, who argue that such arrangements undermine Kenya's data sovereignty— the principle that the data of a country's citizens should be governed by that country's laws, not those of a foreign state. Echoes in the Seychelles This isn't the first time Travizory has been linked to questions of transparency and conflict of interest. In Seychelles, an archipelago praised for topping Africa's Corruption Perception Index, the company is the central player in a growing controversy involving the nation's Minister of Transport, Antony Derjacques. The minister, whose law chamber reportedly advised Travizory, failed to disclose this connection while overseeing the company's 10-year government contract with Travizory for managing the country's digital travel authorization platform—a tool that became central during the COVID-19 pandemic. Seychelles opposition leader Sebastien Pillay has called for Derjacques' resignation, alleging a clear conflict of interest. The National Assembly is now grappling with how to circulate the confidential contract without breaching its non-disclosure clauses, raising even more concerns about transparency in public-private partnerships. Why It Matters for Africa For African nations investing heavily in digital identity, e-visas, and border modernization, the Travizory case offers valuable lessons. Technology may be global, but accountability must be local. Governments entering agreements with fast-scaling tech vendors—particularly in high-trust areas like biometric surveillance, passenger data, and border security—must implement stronger vetting processes, conflict of interest safeguards, and ongoing performance audits. This is especially important as African states look to digitize border control, often under tight deadlines and with support from international donors or multilateral partners. The risk? Falling for shiny demos without digging into a company's history, real-world deployments, or local partnerships. The Bigger Picture In a market where companies compete not just with technology but also perception, moments like these become inflection points. Travizory's allegations of corruption in Seychelles, Kenya and others that we have yet to uncover, should not be dismissed as isolated events—they're reflective of a deeper industry tension between growth, and governance. And for African governments watching from the sidelines, now is the time to ask the right questions—not just can this be done, but by whom and at what cost?
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Man charged with killing a top Minnesota House Democrat is expected to plead not guilty
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The man charged with killing the top Democrat in the Minnesota House and her husband, and wounding a state senator and his wife, is expected to plead not guilty when he's arraigned in federal court on Thursday, his attorney said. Vance Boelter, 58, of Green Isle, Minnesota, was indicted July 15 on six counts of murder, stalking and firearms violations. The murder charges could carry the federal death penalty, though prosecutors say that decision is several months away. As they announced the indictment, prosecutors released a rambling handwritten letter they say Boelter wrote to FBI Director Kash Patel in which he confessed to the June 14 shootings of Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark. However, the letter doesn't make clear why he targeted the Hortmans or Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, who survived. Boelter's federal defender, Manny Atwal, said at the time that the weighty charges did not come as a surprise, but she has not commented on the substance of the allegations or any defense strategies. The hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster will also serve as a case management conference. She plans to issue a revised schedule with deadlines afterward, potentially including a trial date. Prosecutors have moved to designate the proceedings as a 'complex case' so that standard speedy trial requirements won't apply, saying both sides will need plenty of time to review the voluminous evidence. 'The investigation of this case arose out of the largest manhunt in Minnesota's history," they wrote. "Accordingly, the discovery to be produced by the government will include a substantial amount of investigative material and reports from more than a dozen different law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.' They said the evidence will include potentially thousands of hours of video footage, tens of thousands of pages of responses to dozens of grand jury subpoenas, and data from numerous electronic devices seized during the investigation. Boelter's motivations remain murky. Friends have described him as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views who had been struggling to find work. Authorities said Boelter made long lists of politicians in Minnesota and other states — all or mostly Democrats. In a series of cryptic notes to The New York Times through his jail's electronic messaging service, Boelter suggested his actions were partly rooted in the Christian commandment to love one's neighbor. 'Because I love my neighbors prior to June 14th I conducted a 2 year long undercover investigation,' he wrote. In messages published earlier by the New York Post, Boelter insisted the shootings had nothing to do with his opposition to abortion or his support for President Donald Trump, but he declined to elaborate. 'There is little evidence showing why he turned to political violence and extremism,' the acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Joe Thompson, told reporters last month. He also reiterated that prosecutors consider Hortman's killing a 'political assassination.' Prosecutors say Boelter was disguised as a police officer and driving a fake squad car early June 14 when he went to the Hoffmans' home in the Minneapolis suburb of Champlin. He shot the senator nine times, and his wife eight times, officials said. Boelter later went to the Hortmans' home in nearby Brooklyn Park and killed both of them, authorities said. Their dog was so gravely injured that he had to be euthanized. Boelter surrendered the next night.
NBC News
4 hours ago
- NBC News
Afghanistan's Taliban have 'weaponized' the judicial system to oppress women, UN expert says
UNITED NATIONS — Afghanistan's Taliban rulers have 'weaponized' the legal and judicial system to oppress women and girls in what amounts to 'crimes against humanity,' the independent U.N. investigator on human rights in the country said. Richard Bennett said in a report to the U.N. General Assembly circulated Wednesday that after seizing power in 2021 the Taliban suspended the 2004 constitution and laws protecting the rights of women and girls. These include a landmark law that criminalized 22 forms of violence against women, including rape and child and forced marriage. The Taliban dismissed all judges under the previous U.S.-backed government, including approximately 270 women, replacing them with men who share their extreme Islamic views, lack legal training and hand down decisions based on edicts issued by the Taliban, he said. In addition, he noted that the Taliban have assumed full control over law enforcement and investigative agencies, systematically purging Afghans who worked for the previous government. Bennett, who was appointed by the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, focused on access to justice and protection for women and girls in his report. He said he held meetings, focus-group discussions and one-on-one interviews with more that 110 Afghans inside and outside the country. He did so remotely because the Taliban have refused to grant him a visa to travel to Afghanistan. Since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, their crackdown on women and girls has been widely reported and globally denounced. Taliban leaders have barred education for women and girls beyond sixth grade, banned most employment, and prohibited women from many public spaces, including parks, gyms and hairdressers. New laws ban women's voices and bare faces outside the home. The Taliban remain isolated from the West because of their restrictions on women and girls and have only been recognized by Russia. Bennett said the Taliban did not respond to an advance copy of the report and a request for information about their efforts to ensure access to justice and protection for women and girls. The Taliban defend their approach to justice by claiming they are implementing Islamic sharia law, but Islamic scholars and others have said their interpretation is unparalleled in other Muslim-majority countries and does not adhere to Islamic teachings. They say protecting the legal rights of women is a priority. Bennett said, however, that women have virtually no rights. 'Today, there are no women judges or prosecutors and no officially registered female lawyers, leaving women and girls with fewer safe channels to report abuse or seek redress,' he wrote. 'Coupled with a lack of female officials in the police and other institutions, the result is widespread underreporting of violence and discrimination against women and girls.' Bennett said access to justice for girls 'is further undermined by the dismantling of key legal safeguards and institutions protecting the rights of children,' including juvenile courts and juvenile rehabilitation centers. The Taliban requirement that a woman must be accompanied by a male relative also creates barriers to filing complaints and attending court proceedings, he said, and disproportionately affects widows, women who are the heads of their households, the displaced and disabled. 'Women who engage with the Taliban court system — whether as victims seeking redress, to resolve family issues, to obtain official documents or as alleged offenders — face a hostile environment,' Bennett said. 'Courts often reject complaints made by women and are especially reluctant to accept cases relating to divorce, child custody and gender-based violence.' Facing these obstacles, Bennett said, women increasingly turn to traditional and informal justice mechanisms, including formal jirgas and shuras — community councils of elders — and informal mediation by religious leaders, community elders or family. But these are all male-dominated and raise 'serious concerns about the rights of women and girls,' he said. He said international forums offer the best hope for justice. He pointed to the International Criminal Court's request on Jan. 23 for arrest warrants for two senior Taliban leaders accused of crimes against humanity for persecution 'on gender grounds.' And he urged all countries to support efforts to bring Afghanistan before the International Court of Justice, the U.N.'s highest tribunal, for violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
