Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from Christian fire chief who wanted to make it easier to sue for discrimination
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of a California fire chief who claimed he lost his job because of his Christian faith, a case that could have made it easier for Americans to win discrimination lawsuits against employers.
Ronald Hittle, a 24-year veteran of the fire department in Stockton, California, said he was fired after attending a two-day Christian conference on city time. The city countered that Hittle had been instructed to attend a 'leadership' conference and told the high court in a brief that the chief had a long history of disobeying direction from superiors.
Two conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – dissented from the decision to deny the case.
Represented in part by the First Liberty Institute, which has filed several successful religious claims at the Supreme Court in recent years, Hittle asked the Supreme Court to toss out a 1973 precedent, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, that has for decades dictated how discrimination claims are reviewed in federal courts.
Thomas wrote the precedent targeted by the case was 'producing troubling outcomes on the ground.'
'I am not aware of many precedents that have caused more confusion than this one,' he added.
Discrimination claims are reviewed under a three-step process under the precedent. First, an employee alleging discrimination must show they belong to a class of people protected under the law — based on race or sex, for instance — and that the company appeared, at first impression, to have engaged in discrimination. In step two, the employer must then show that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the actions it took against the plaintiff.
In the third step, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the company's stated reasons aren't simply a pretext for discrimination. Hittle asked the court to toss out McDonnell entirely or, alternatively, make it easier for employees to win under the third step.
'The court should take the opportunity to overrule this unworkable and egregiously wrong test without further delay,' Hittle's attorneys told the Supreme Court. The approach, they said, 'has rightly been criticized by judges and scholars alike.'
A federal district court in California sided with the city and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Hittle appealed to the Supreme Court in October.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
42 minutes ago
Chinese hackers and user lapses turn smartphones into a 'mobile security crisis'
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Cybersecurity investigators noticed a highly unusual software crash — it was affecting a small number of smartphones belonging to people who worked in government, politics, tech and journalism. The crashes, which began late last year and carried into 2025, were the tipoff to a sophisticated cyberattack that may have allowed hackers to infiltrate a phone without a single click from the user. The attackers left no clues about their identities, but investigators at the cybersecurity firm iVerify noticed that the victims all had something in common: They worked in fields of interest to China's government and had been targeted by Chinese hackers in the past. Foreign hackers have increasingly identified smartphones, other mobile devices and the apps they use as a weak link in U.S. cyberdefenses. Groups linked to China's military and intelligence service have targeted the smartphones of prominent Americans and burrowed deep into telecommunication networks, according to national security and tech experts. It shows how vulnerable mobile devices and apps are and the risk that security failures could expose sensitive information or leave American interests open to cyberattack, those experts say. 'The world is in a mobile security crisis right now,' said Rocky Cole, a former cybersecurity expert at the National Security Agency and Google and now chief operations officer at iVerify. 'No one is watching the phones.' U.S. authorities warned in December of a sprawling Chinese hacking campaign designed to gain access to the texts and phone conversations of an unknown number of Americans. 'They were able to listen in on phone calls in real time and able to read text messages,' said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee and the senior Democrat on the Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, created to study the geopolitical threat from China. Chinese hackers also sought access to phones used by Donald Trump and running mate JD Vance during the 2024 campaign. The Chinese government has denied allegations of cyberespionage, and accused the U.S. of mounting its own cyberoperations. It says America cites national security as an excuse to issue sanctions against Chinese organizations and keep Chinese technology companies from the global market. 'The U.S. has long been using all kinds of despicable methods to steal other countries' secrets,' Lin Jian, a spokesman for China's foreign ministry, said at a recent press conference in response to questions about a CIA push to recruit Chinese informants. U.S. intelligence officials have said China poses a significant, persistent threat to U.S. economic and political interests, and it has harnessed the tools of digital conflict: online propaganda and disinformation, artificial intelligence and cyber surveillance and espionage designed to deliver a significant advantage in any military conflict. Mobile networks are a top concern. The U.S. and many of its closest allies have banned Chinese telecom companies from their networks. Other countries, including Germany, are phasing out Chinese involvement because of security concerns. But Chinese tech firms remain a big part of the systems in many nations, giving state-controlled companies a global footprint they could exploit for cyberattacks, experts say. Chinese telecom firms still maintain some routing and cloud storage systems in the U.S. — a growing concern to lawmakers. 'The American people deserve to know if Beijing is quietly using state-owned firms to infiltrate our critical infrastructure,' U.S. Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich. and chairman of the China committee, which in April issued subpoenas to Chinese telecom companies seeking information about their U.S. operations. Mobile devices can buy stocks, launch drones and run power plants. Their proliferation has often outpaced their security. The phones of top government officials are especially valuable, containing sensitive government information, passwords and an insider's glimpse into policy discussions and decision-making. The White House said last week that someone impersonating Susie Wiles, Trump's chief of staff, reached out to governors, senators and business leaders with texts and phone calls. It's unclear how the person obtained Wiles' connections, but they apparently gained access to the contacts in her personal cellphone, The Wall Street Journal reported. The messages and calls were not coming from Wiles' number, the newspaper reported. While most smartphones and tablets come with robust security, apps and connected devices often lack these protections or the regular software updates needed to stay ahead of new threats. That makes every fitness tracker, baby monitor or smart appliance another potential foothold for hackers looking to penetrate networks, retrieve information or infect systems with malware. Federal officials launched a program this year creating a 'cyber trust mark' for connected devices that meet federal security standards. But consumers and officials shouldn't lower their guard, said Snehal Antani, former chief technology officer for the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command. 'They're finding backdoors in Barbie dolls,' said Antani, now CEO of a cybersecurity firm, referring to concerns from researchers who successfully hacked the microphone of a digitally connected version of the toy. It doesn't matter how secure a mobile device is if the user doesn't follow basic security precautions, especially if their device contains classified or sensitive information, experts say. Mike Waltz, who departed as Trump's national security adviser, inadvertently added The Atlantic's editor-in-chief to a Signal chat used to discuss military plans with other top officials. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had an internet connection that bypassed the Pentagon's security protocols set up in his office so he could use the Signal messaging app on a personal computer, the AP has reported. Hegseth has rejected assertions that he shared classified information on Signal, a popular encrypted messaging app not approved for the use of communicating classified information. China and other nations will try to take advantage of such lapses, and national security officials must take steps to prevent them from recurring, said Michael Williams, a national security expert at Syracuse University. 'They all have access to a variety of secure communications platforms,' Williams said. "We just can't share things willy-nilly.'
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Don't get distracted by the President Trump-Elon Musk breakup circus
To the editor: Really, Los Angeles Times? Why would you put an argument between President Trump and Elon Musk, who are behaving like 8-year-olds, on the front page when these two men don't give a hoot about the American people (''Have a nice day, DJT!': Trump's breakup with Musk devolves into a war of insults,' June 5)? Outside of this feud, there's the unnecessary deportations of men, women and children; the destruction of USAID and the resulting starvations; and the unnecessary firing of thousands of federal employees with the excuse of cleaning up fraud and abuse (but actually accomplishing very little). I could go on and on. But personally, I think this argument is just another tactic by Trump and Musk to distract us from the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' and the looming loss of medical insurance for millions of Americans. Sheryl Kinne, Van Nuys .. To the editor: While the feud between Musk and Trump has a train wreck-like appeal, we forget that the world is also watching. This high school showdown is foolish and irresponsible, but the blame lies directly with the Republican Party. They kissed the ring of this clown and allowed the White House to become the laughingstock of the entire world, not to mention the destruction that has occurred at home: a drop in stock prices, costly tariffs and mass deportations — sometimes of innocent people. Every Republican who has been part of these antics needs to go. It is time for America to get smart and say to the Republican Party the only two words that have me in agreement with Trump: 'You're fired!' Paula Petrotta, Rancho Palos Verdes .. To the editor: Gee, Trump is heading for his third divorce, this time with Musk. I wonder who will get custody of the chainsaw. Bob Canning, Petaluma, Calif.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
What's Harder? Planning Interest Rates, Or Harvard's Class Of 2029?
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS - JUNE 29: People walk through the gate on Harvard Yard at the Harvard ... More University campus on June 29, 2023 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution, bringing an end to affirmative action in higher education. (Photo by) Regarding the makeup of Harvard's student body, President Trump thinks 15 percent is a more advisable number than 25 when it comes to international students. Quite reasonably Trump's critics, and surely many who are fans of Trump, are astounded by his conceit. How could the President effectively plan Harvard's student body? Also, since foreign students pay full tuition, it's entirely possible that their payments make it possible for needier Americans to secure spots at Harvard. Or maybe not. What's important with Harvard, and with all schools, is that Presidents, Senators, experts and agitators more broadly should stay out of their admission decisions. And for those who say that Harvard is 'unique' since so many federal dollars flow its way, please stop right there. The thinking is nonsensical. Precisely because the federal government is so large, and for being large operating well beyond its constitutionally limited scope, theoretically nearly every U.S. individual, business and non-profit university is getting something from the government. Let's not expand on the wrong of a federal government lacking boundaries through the excusal of even worse trespasses. Hands off individuals, businesses, and universities. Plus, the arrogance of it all! Harvard is easily one of the most difficult 'fat envelopes' in the world to attain, yet Trump thinks he can plan the class's demographic makeup? That's like the government planning U.S. imports or exports…Oh wait, they sometimes do that. Or try to. Ok, it's like the government attempting to plan the cost of credit to our alleged non-inflationary betterment…Oh wait, they presume to do that too. Interviewed recently by New York Times reporter Colby Smith about the direction of interest rates, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland president Beth Hammack seemingly wrung her hands as she told Smith, 'I legitimately do not know which way this is going to break.' Hammack added that she would 'rather wait and move quickly to play catch up if I really don't know what the right move is. And right now, I really don't know what the right move is based on all of the information and policies that we're responding to.' Some reading the above will conclude that Hammack was being modest, sober in making a difficult assessment about what's ahead, stuff like that. They would conclude incorrectly. The only correct answer from central bankers wouldn't be a professed willingness to delay blind stabs at market intervention, but to instead instruct Smith on the absurdity of the question. Lest everyone forget, people borrow money for what it can be exchanged for. In other words, the cost of credit is the cost of accessing exchange media that can be exchanged not for one market good, but for every market good in the world. Which is a reminder that other than perhaps the dollar that exists as the world's currency, the price of credit is easily the most important price in the world. And exactly because we're all so different now and in the future, there's an interest rate for every single person, business and university in the world, all arrived at through the relentless collision of infinite global inputs every millisecond of every day. Remember this as Hammack and central bankers like her oh so modestly tell Smith 'I legitimately do not know which way [what the Fed will do with 'interest rates'] this is going to break." Wrong answer, and wrong question. Hammack should have replied to Smith that a central banker planning something as complicated as the cost of credit would be as foolhardy as a president planning Harvard's class of 2029, multiplied by many millions.
