Venezuelan workers at Disney put on leave from jobs after losing protective status
ORLANDO, Fla. — Almost four dozen Venezuelan workers who had temporary protected status have been put on leave by Disney after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to strip them of legal protections.
The move was made to make sure that the employees were not in violation of the law, Disney said in a statement Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
28 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in religious-rights case over unemployment taxes
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court decided Thursday that a Catholic charity doesn't have to pay Wisconsin unemployment taxes, one of a set of religious-rights cases the justices are considering this term. The unanimous ruling comes in a case filed by the Catholic Charities Bureau, which says the state violated the 1st Amendment's religious freedom guarantee when it required the organization to pay the tax while exempting other faith groups. Wisconsin argues the organization has paid the tax for over 50 years and doesn't qualify for an exemption because its day-to-day work doesn't involve religious teachings. Much of the groups' funding is from public money, and neither employees nor people receiving services have to belong to any faith, according to court papers. Catholic Charities, though, says it qualifies because its disability services are motivated by religious beliefs and the state shouldn't be making determinations about what work qualifies as religious. It appealed to the Supreme Court after Wisconsin's highest court ruled against it. President Trump's administration weighed in on behalf of Catholic Charites. Wisconsin has said that a decision in favor of the charity could open the door to big employers like religiously affiliated hospitals pulling out of the state unemployment system as well. The conservative-majority court has issued a string of decisions siding with churches and religious plaintiffs in recent years. This term, though, a plan to establish a publicly funded Catholic charter school lost after when the justices deadlocked after Amy Coney Barrett recused herself. The nine-member court is also considering a case over religious objections to books read in public schools. In those arguments, the majority appeared sympathetic to the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court rules unanimously in favor of straight Ohio woman who claimed discrimination
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of an Ohio woman who claimed she was discriminated against for job promotions in favor of gay candidates on Thursday. The ruling, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, finds that members of majority groups in protected classes do not need to meet a higher standard of evidence in order to establish discrimination. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion of the court in the 9-0 decision. "The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs—those who are members of majority groups—to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard," Jackson wrote. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated." The woman in the case, Marlean Ames, is a heterosexual woman who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. She argued she was discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation after she was passed over for a promotion in 2019 in favor of a lesbian woman, and was then later replaced in her own role by a gay man. "Ames was qualified, had been denied a promotion in favor of a gay candidate, and was later demoted in favor of another gay candidate—evidence that would ordinarily satisfy her prima facie burden—before it specifically faulted Ames for failing to make the 'requisite showing of "background circumstances."'" Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Thursday's ruling strikes down the Sixth Circuit Court's "background circumstances" rule, which had required majority groups in protected classes to show special evidence of discrimination. Thursday's order does not fully resolve the case in Ames' favor, however. The court notes that Ohio had "alternative arguments" for why the Ohio government's treatment of Ames was justified. The justices said they are not weighing in on those alternative arguments, merely striking down the "background circumstances" rule. "We granted review to consider the validity of the "background circumstances" rule, and we reject that rule for the reasons set forth above. We leave it to the courts below to address any of Ohio's remaining arguments on remand," Jackson wrote. Ames' case was supported by the Justice Department, the American First Legal Foundation and the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the major groups backing Ohio in the case.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules against Mexico in its lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers
The Supreme Court sided with the firearms industry in ruling that Mexico's novel lawsuit didn't plausibly allege that gun companies had aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico had sued seven U.S. firearm manufacturers and a distributor for allegedly aiding and abetting illegal sales, arguing that the companies intentionally facilitated unlawful trafficking of their firearms across the southern border, supplying a demand by Mexican drug cartels that seek out American-made military-style weapons. But the companies argued that Mexico's legal theory was too far-fetched. 'Indeed, if Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk, and crash,' argued Noel Francisco, a former solicitor general under Donald Trump, to the justices on behalf of the industry in March. 'The First Circuit gravely erred in embracing that implausible theory and should be reversed,' Francisco added, referring to the federal appeals court that greenlit Mexico's lawsuit to move forward last year. The appellate panel noted that the 'increase in gun violence in Mexico correlates with the increase of gun production in the United States, beginning with the end of the United States' assault-weapon ban in 2004.' This is a developing story. Check back for updates. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump's legal cases. This article was originally published on
