Will White Men Rush to Court After Justices' Latest Ruling? Not Likely.
A Supreme Court ruling on Thursday handed a victory to white Americans and straight people who believe they have been discriminated against in the workplace.
But just how widespread are those complaints?
President Trump and his allies have argued that discrimination against white Americans and straight people is a workplace scourge that often occurs under the cover of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. His administration has gone to great lengths to undo what it calls 'illegal D.E.I.,' including ousting diversity officials from federal agencies and removing D.E.I. language from government websites.
Experts in employment law argue that the reality is more complicated, and say that the Supreme Court ruling is unlikely to drastically change the makeup of those filing and winning workplace discrimination cases.
'It will likely continue to be that a majority of discrimination cases are filed by minority-group members,' said Camille Olson, a partner at the management-side law firm Seyfarth Shaw. 'But I think there will be an increasing number of cases that are filed by individuals who are either male or heterosexual or not a member of a minority race or religion.'
Federal government data suggest that members of so-called majority groups have historically brought only a small fraction of discrimination cases. Of the roughly 21,000 charges of race-based employment discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2021, only slightly more than 10 percent — about 2,350 — involved charges of discrimination against white people.
Ms. Olson said that such figures almost certainly understated the number of cases of discrimination against white people in the workplace, partly because the law in many parts of the country created an obstacle to litigating these cases.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
12 minutes ago
Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds
NEW YORK -- The world's richest man could lose billions in his fight with world's most powerful politician. The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla's plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers. Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump's appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds. Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, 'Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he'll probably just let this pass.' Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk. 'For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon's businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable.' Trump and the federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk. The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla's driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win. Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis. Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk's driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian. A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency "will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.' The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment. The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50% in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14% amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4%. 'Tesla's recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm," said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. 'Elon's feud with Trump could be a negative.' One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla's business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits. As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican senators inserted new language into Trump's budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling 'regulatory credits' to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls. Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk's time working for Trump. Credit sales jumped by a third to $595 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped. Musk's foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms. If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that's far from certain. Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas 'in a meaningful way.' But he's now less hopeful. 'There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments,' TD Cowen's Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, 'and it's still too early to determine any lasting impacts.' Michaeli's stock target for Tesla earlier this year was $388. He has since lowered it to $330. Tesla was trading Friday at $300. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars. The privately held company that is reportedly worth $350 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year. But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the U.S. SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia's Soyuz capsules. Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn't do it. A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk's once-close relationship with the president. Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs. It's not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business. On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40% of India's more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the internet. Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash. Musk has called their decision to leave an 'illegal boycott' and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them. Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger. If Trump sours on X, "there's a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands,' said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an 'exodus isn't obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends.'
Wall Street Journal
16 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Supreme Court Allows DOGE Access to Social Security Data
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for members of the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting group once led by Elon Musk, to access sensitive Social Security Administration records. Granting an emergency request by the Trump administration, the justices lifted a lower court order that for now had barred DOGE employees or affiliates from accessing the agency's systems and directed them to delete personal information they already had gathered.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court largely reinstates Trump's ban on AP's access to White House
A federal appeals court panel on Friday reinstated parts of President Donald Trump's ban of the Associated Press from several key areas where presidential press events are typically held, including the Oval Office, Air Force One and the president's home in Mar-A-Lago. The court left in place part of a lower-court order that required Trump to give AP access to events held in larger spaces, like the East Room. The ruling is a setback to the news organization's efforts to restore its access to the White House press pool, the small group of reporters and photographers who get access to a variety of White House spaces and other areas frequented by the president. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both Trump appointees, largely granted the government's request to lift an April ruling from a district judge who blocked the ban. The decision from Rao and Katsas allows most of the ban to go back into effect while litigation over its constitutionality continues. The AP sued after Trump banned the news organization for refusing to adopt his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America.' In a 27-page opinion, Rao wrote that 'these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion. The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' Katsas signed onto Rao's opinion. The April injunction from district judge Trevor McFadden, another Trump appointee, 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces,' Rao added. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented from the ruling, saying that the Supreme Court has never held that journalists or news organizations can be excluded from a forum based on their viewpoint. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. 'Looking further ahead, if any merits panel were to accept those theories, the result would be a Press Pool — and perhaps an entire press corps — limited during Republican administrations to the likes of Fox News and limited to outlets such as MSNBC when a Democrat is elected.' The Trump administration has argued that Air Force One, the Oval Office and other spaces in the White House are akin to personal and private spaces where public access can be restricted.
