Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from Christian fire chief who wanted to make it easier to sue for discrimination
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
Boston Globe
4 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why autocracy is rising in America, and how to stop it before it's too late
These two examples are but a sample of the laser-focused and ever-intensifying Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up 'This is about how do you dismantle democracy, in real time, in plain sight,' Stacey Abrams, voting rights activist and former Georgia state legislator, said in an Advertisement It can all feel overwhelming, as if it is too much coming at us too fast to wrap our arms around, let alone fight. But that isn't true. There are things we all can do to push back against and mitigate the autocratic turn our nation has taken. But first, we have to be clear about how and why authoritarianism can so easily take over a democracy like America's. Advertisement It's not just the Supreme Court's continued targeting of the Voting Rights Act or the flagrant partisan gerrymandering to keep increasingly purple states like Texas bright red. Democracy is dying by a thousand cuts, though many feel more like machete wounds. They include Then there's the plan, straight out of Project 2025, to There is also the federal And so much more. Ask yourself: If Republicans were so confident that their policies were popular, why would they be working so hard to rig the electoral system to hold onto power? They give their own game away. But they couldn't do it unless a significant portion of Americans (far short of a majority) were willing to go along with it. I'm often shocked at the willingness of so many Americans to watch our democratic guardrails crumble with barely an 'oh, hum.' But Abrams raised an important point: The way autocrats win over supporters is by telling them the lie that democracy cannot give the people what they need, and that they should embrace an alternative. That was exactly how Rodrigo Duterte rose to power in the Philippines and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. And now it's happening here. Advertisement Republicans have been successful in making their supporters think, as Abrams said, that 'it's this community of people [Democrats] who are the reason you don't have anything, and so we will let you [Republicans] oppress an entire population if it justifies our convenience and guarantees us what we need.' Add a healthy dose of fear-mongering (the entire basis of the Trump administration's militarized attack on immigrants and cities like Washington, D.C.) and otherwise sensible people's tolerance for democratic backsliding skyrockets. But there is reason for hope: We are not without power to push back in real, meaningful ways. 'We need your investment,' Abrams said. 'This is not just about money. It's about time, talent, and treasure.' Give money to pro-democracy causes and candidates if you have it to spare, but that's not the only way. Contact advocacy organizations — from immigrant support groups to organizations dedicated to keeping elections free and fair — and ask what they need. Often it isn't just money but also volunteer time and effort. Contacting members of Congress is useful, but so is showing up at your local town council and school board meetings and demanding they fight against local-level autocracy like book banning and conservative takeovers of school curricula. Talk to your neighbors, your family, and your friends about how much we have to lose if we don't take action. 'We've got to show up and show that democracy can still deliver, even if it's being delivered by individuals,' Abrams said. 'Your church, your organization, your Girl Scout troop, whatever coalition you have, has to step into the gap.' It was a wonderful reminder to me that we are not powerless. I want to remind you of that, too. Advertisement Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
USA Today
4 minutes ago
- USA Today
Are stimulus checks coming? What to know after Trump proposed tariff rebate
Last month, President Donald Trump teased that a potential rebate could be attached to the worldwide tariffs he announced earlier this year. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate,' Trump said on July 25 ahead of his trip to Scotland, where he planned to iron out the details of a United Kingdom trade agreement. The White House has announced that some of the tariffs, which were disclosed on April 2, have raised $100 billion in revenue. Trump didn't provide further details on the potential rebates, which are unlikely to pass in Congress, except to say they would only be available to people from certain income levels. The president would need congressional approval to authorize the rebates. While details are scarce, here's what you need to know about a potential tariff rebate. Previous story: Trump considers 'rebates' to US taxpayers from tariff income Sen. Josh Hawley introduces rebate bill Shortly after Trump's July comments, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025. The proposed legislation would send rebate checks of at least $600 per individual to U.S. residents. A family of four could receive up to $2,400. The legislation allows the credit to increase if tariff revenues exceed 2025 projections. 'My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country,' said Hawley in a news release announcing the bill. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said tariff revenue is expected to reach $300 billion annually. Yet, economists have said the policies could increase inflation and cost taxpayers thousands of dollars per year, especially if Trump doesn't reach trade deals with key partners like Canada and Mexico. For joint filers with an adjusted gross income of over $150,000 and people filing single who earn more than $75,000, the benefit would be reduced by 5%. The legislation has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It would need to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives to become law. What are some of the hurdles facing the rebate? Republican lawmakers are unlikely to be excited about increasing federal spending. The stimulus checks issued during the COVID-19 pandemic cost the government about $164 billion. If checks were issued, it would mean a significant percentage of tariff revenue would be going back to taxpayers at a time when Trump himself has said his priority is paying down $37 trillion in debt. "The big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said in July. 'But we're thinking about rebates.' In an interview with Semafor, one conservative lawmaker shot down the idea. "People love spending money and granting new tax cuts when we can't afford it," Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, told the outlet. 'We're $37 trillion in debt and running $2 trillion a year deficits – some time, this madness just has to end.' How is a tax rebate different from a stimulus check? A tax rebate is a reimbursement made to a taxpayer for an excess amount paid in taxes during the year, while a stimulus check is a direct payment from the federal government to households. Tax rebates can be issued at any point during the year. Hawley's news release states that the parameters for the tax rebate would be similar to the stimulus checks issued in 2020 during the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic. When could a tax rebate be implemented? Hawley's bill has until the end of the current congressional calendar to pass through both chambers of Congress, or it will be considered dead and would need to be introduced again if lawmakers want to move forward with it. Michelle Del Rey is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at mdelrey@
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Epstein survivor: Maxwell pardon would be ‘huge error'
Jeffrey Epstein survivor Haley Robson said that President Trump would make a 'huge error' if he were to pardon Epstein's close confidant, convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. 'I don't think Ghislaine has anything to say. I think it's all rubbish. I think it's dishonesty. It's a huge mistake for her to have the move in the first place, if you pardon her, they'll be making a huge error,' Robson said in an interview with CNN released on Tuesday. Earlier this month, Trump said in an interview with Newsmax that he had not been asked about a pardon for Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence on sex trafficking charges. When asked about granting clemency for Maxwell, the British socialite and Epstein's longtime associate, in exchange for her testimony, the president said 'I'm allowed to do it. But nobody's asked me to do it.' Robson, who was introduced to Epstein by a classmate, said she met the convicted sex offender and the late, disgraced financier in 2002 as a 16-year-old in West Palm Beach, Fla. Robson was asked to give Epstein a massage, and he then started masturbating in front of her. She rejected his advances, but the disgraced financier then offered her $200 for each girl she recruited. 'I think at the moment, it was an act of me trying to just survive and get out of the situation, because I didn't know what to expect next. I didn't know what was going to happen,' Robson told CNN, adding that she recruited girls for two years. Last month, Maxwell was quietly transferred from a federal prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas. The transfer came as her legal team appeals her case to the Supreme Court. Maxwell sat for two interviews with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in Tallahassee in July, as the Trump administration faced increased pressure to release more documents related to Epstein's case. Maxwell's lawyer previously said he had not spoken to the president about a potential pardon. Maxwell's move to Federal Prison Camp Bryan spurred an investigation from House Judiciary Democrats, who argue the transfer creates 'the strong appearance that it is attempting to cover up the full extent of the relationship between Trump and Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 in New York as he awaited trial.
