Supreme Court makes it easier to bring ‘reverse discrimination' claims
Individuals belonging to 'majority groups' in some parts of the country may find it easier to bring cases of discrimination after the Supreme Court sided with a heterosexual woman in a case about employer discrimination.
In a unanimous ruling on Thursday, the justices lowered the bar for people belonging to 'majority groups,' typically white, heterosexual, cisgender, and male, to claim discrimination.
This is a breaking news story, more follows… Supreme CourtSCOTUSdiscriminationSupreme Court US
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Police officers in Derby played 'crass' game with sex worker photos
Police officers used photos of sex workers to play a "crass and inappropriate" game of "snog, marry or avoid", an employment tribunal game came to light as part of an unsuccessful claim of racial discrimination brought by former probationary police constable Shafarat Mohammed against Derbyshire Mohammed sued the force claiming colleagues had discriminated against him when he served as an officer in Derby between March 2022 and his resignation in October that year.A report on the findings of the tribunal, published on Thursday, said Mr Mohammed, an Asian Muslim, alleged he was subjected to acts of direct discrimination because of his race and religious beliefs. Among his claims were that, in May or June 2023, a colleague asked him to look at pictures of black female sex workers and comment on whether he liked claimant said the game, where players pick people they would prefer to kiss, marry or avoid, left him offended and embarrassed and was racially a report, tribunal judge Stephen Shore said the game could have constituted sexual harassment but Mr Mohammed had not made such a judge said: "The 'game' was crass and inappropriate. It casts no one who participated in it in a good light." A panel, led by the judge, dismissed all of the Mr Mohammed's claims which also included that he had been ostracised and excluded from team and social events and that colleagues ordered and ate bacon sandwiches, knowing he was a Muslim, to further exclude Mohammed said he had also been called a "Road Man", a slang term for a drug dealer, by a colleague during one of his first shifts at Pear Tree Police Station in Derby in March panel heard evidence from the complainant during a five-day hearing at the Nottingham Tribunal Hearing Centre, in July last year."Our analysis of the facts of each, claim led us to the conclusion that many of the claims were weak and not founded in fact," the panel's report panel report said Mr Mohammed had "weakened his case by withdrawing allegations" and had retrospectively refitted facts to fit his discrimination panel also found he had fabricated facts to bolster his claims, some of which were contradicted by his own contemporaneous panel said evidence presented to the tribunal found the claimant "struggled" as a probationary officer while working at a "pressurised" police Police has been contacted for comment.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Attorneys in NCAA antitrust case to share $475M in fees, with potential to reach $725M
The attorneys who shepherded the blockbuster antitrust lawsuit to fruition for hundreds of thousands of college athletes will share in just over $475 million in fees, and the figure could rise to more than $725 million over the next 10 years. The request for plaintiff legal fees in the House vs. NCAA case, outlined in a December court filing and approved Friday night, struck experts in class-action litigation as reasonable. Co-lead counsels Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler asked for $475.2 million, or 18.3% of the cash common funds of $2.596 billion. They also asked for an additional $250 million, for a total of $725.2 million, based on a widely accepted estimate of an additional $20 billion in direct benefits to athletes over the 10-year settlement term. That would be 3.2% of what would then be a $22.596 billion settlement. 'Class Counsel have represented classes of student-athletes in multiple litigations challenging NCAA restraints on student-athlete compensation, and they have achieved extraordinary results. Class Counsel's representation of the settlement class members here is no exception,' U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote. University of Buffalo law professor Christine Bartholomew, who researched about 1,300 antitrust class-action settlements from 2005-22 for a book she authored, told The Associated Press the request for attorneys' fees could have been considered a bit low given the difficulty of the case, which dates back five years. She said it is not uncommon for plaintiffs' attorneys to be granted as much as 30% of the common funds. Attorneys' fees generally are calculated by multiplying an hourly rate by the number of hours spent working on a case. In class-action lawsuits, though, plaintiffs' attorneys work on a contingency basis, meaning they get paid at the end of the case only if the class wins a financial settlement. 'Initially, you look at it and think this is a big number,' Bartholomew said. 'When you look at how contingency litigation works generally, and then you think about how this fits into the class-action landscape, this is not a particularly unusual request.' The original lawsuit was filed in June 2020 and it took until November 2023 for Wilken to grant class certification, meaning she thought the case had enough merit to proceed. Elon University law professor Catherine Dunham said gaining class certification is challenging in any case, but especially a complicated one like this. 'If a law firm takes on a case like this where you have thousands of plaintiffs and how many depositions and documents, what that means is the law firm can't do other work while they're working on the case and they are taking on the risk they won't get paid,' Dunham said. 'If the case doesn't certify as a class, they won't get paid.' In the request for fees, the firm of Hagens Berman said it had dedicated 33,952 staff hours to the case through mid-December 2024. Berman, whose rate is $1,350 per hour, tallied 1,116.5 hours. Kessler, of Winston & Strawn, said he worked 1,624 hours on the case at a rate of $1,980 per hour. The case was exhaustive. Hundreds of thousands of documents totaling millions of pages were produced by the defendants — the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC — as part of the discovery process. Berman and Kessler wrote the 'plaintiffs had to litigate against six well-resourced defendants and their high-powered law firms who fought every battle tooth and nail. To fend off these efforts, counsel conducted extensive written discovery and depositions, and submitted voluminous expert submissions and lengthy briefing. In addition, class counsel also had to bear the risk of perpetual legislative efforts to kill these cases.' Antitrust class-action cases are handled by the federal court system and have been harder to win since 2005, when the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act was passed, according to Bartholomew. 'Defendants bring motion after motion and there's more of a pro-defendant viewpoint in federal court than there had been in state court,' she said. 'As a result, you would not be surprised that courts, when cases do get through to fruition, are pretty supportive of applications for attorneys' fees because there's great risk that comes from bringing these cases fiscally for the firms who, if the case gets tossed early, never gets compensated for the work they've done.' ___
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
An AP discussion on the courts, lawyers and testimony inside the Diddy, Weinstein and Mangione cases
Julie Walker, AP radio correspondent: We're here to talk about three big cases in New York. Sean "Diddy" Combs charged with sex trafficking and racketeering by the Feds. He pled not guilty. Down the street in state court, Harvey Weinstein's retrial by the Manhattan DA on rape and sex assault charges. He also pled not to guilty. And then there's Luigi Mangione. He's charged by both the state and the Feds with killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and has also pled not guilty. Joining me now, two of the Associated Press reporters covering the cases and the courts, Larry Neumeister and Mike Sisak. And I'm Julie Walker. All right, let's start with Sean "Diddy" Combs, what's been going on with that trial? Larry Neumeister, AP courts reporter: They're fascinated by a celebrity on trial. And as part of that, I've been trying to figure out what was he really called around his office? Was he called Diddy? Was he call Puff Daddy? Was called he Puff? Was he, called you know, Sean Combs? A lot of the witnesses seem to have called him Puff every day at the office. So that's my first takeaway from the trial. Mike, how about you? Michael Sisak, AP law enforcement reporter: I think it's fascinating that you have Sean Combs on trial at the same time as Harvey Weinstein's retrial, because you have the arc of the #MeToo movement playing out in the entertainment industry and across different aspects of the entertainment industry. Harvey Weinstein 's allegations in 2017 really kickstarted the #MeToo movement. He then had his trial in 2020. Now we're sort of on the other side of that arc where it's Sean Combs opening a window into the hip-hop industry, into the music industry, certainly the most famous, most well-known person from that aspect of entertainment, on trial, and you see the media and public attention gravitating to the Combs trial, to the Diddy trial, much more so than the Weinstein retrial, in part because of the fascination with celebrity. NEUMEISTER: And plus, I think with Weinstein, he's convicted out in LA. So, because he's already, you know, going to be in jail, even if he got exonerated at this second trial, he's still sentenced to a long time in prison. SISAK: He has a form of cancer, he has heart issues, he has all of these things that have only gotten worse, his lawyers say, since that first trial. But to your point, Larry, yes, he is convicted in Los Angeles, and the retrial in New York was caused by an appeals court overturning that 2020 conviction. WALKER: So, to sum it up for just one moment, two very different men, but at one point, very powerful, thought to be very untouchable. And I want to get back to both of them, but I want a pivot just for a minute and remind everyone that we're also talking about Luigi Mangione. SISAK: The fascinating thing about the Mangione case is that he could wind up in both courthouses. You have Diddy in the federal courthouse, you have Weinstein in the state courthouse, and Mangione faces murder charges in both the federal jurisdiction and the state jurisdiction. And initially, we thought and were told by prosecutors that the state case would proceed first. Now the state case, the maximum punishment would be life in prison. However, the Trump administration has gone ahead and filed paperwork indicating that they will seek the death penalty in the federal case, that case appears like it will now be the first one out. His next court date in the federal case is not until December. NEUMEISTER: Seeking the death penalty right off the bat adds one year to everything, and probably two to three years in the long run, because everything will get appealed to the hilt, certainly if they found the death-penalty. But the last time I saw in Manhattan them, the prosecutors seeking a death penalty, was in 2001, and it was two guys charged in an attack on two African embassies that like over 100 people. I think it's hard to win a death penalty case in Manhattan. WALKER: Now the other interesting thing is that Luigi Mangione and Sean "Diddy" Combs are in the same jail right now. SISAK: Yeah, Mangione and Combs are both at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, which is a federal jail that has been in the headlines not only because of the celebrity guests there. Sam Bankman-Fried, the cryptocurrency scammer, was also detained there, but also because that jail has a lot of problems. It's the only federal jail in New York City now. They closed the one in Manhattan where Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide. NEUMEISTER: And you know what, we've had a lot of celebrities appear in the federal courts in Manhattan. I mean, over the years, we had Martha Stewart convicted here. We had, just in the last year or two, we had Robert De Niro in the Robert De Niro civil trial. Well, one thing that's interesting about this Sean Combs trial that I don't think I've ever seen is so many witnesses that are subpoenaed to appear in the trial. We must have had a good four or five witnesses who were subpoenaed to appear. A couple of them said they definitely didn't want to testify. One of them would have pleaded the fifth, but was given immunity. So he testified. He said it was the last place he wanted to be. And what that enables is the defense to really kind of co-opt them as their witness. WALKER: You're talking about the ex-assistant. NEUMEISTER: Yes, George Kaplan, I believe is his name, and he appeared and said all these wonderful things about Sean Combs. He still sends him birthday greetings every year, although he did remark that he invited Combs to his wedding and Combs didn't even respond. So, you know, I don't know how that plays to the jury. But yeah, you know, there's so many witnesses and the defense lawyers more than I've ever seen in I think any trial I've witnessed in 33 years covering the courts, the defense lawyers keep treating a lot of these witnesses as their friendly witness. WALKER: I want to get back to the defense and his defense team, but let's talk about the jury for a minute, because a lot of people ask me about that since I have been in court with the two of you. And obviously, you know, the jury is anonymous. Eight men, four women, and then the six alternates, and it's like a slice of life from New York. NEUMEISTER: Well, there's many kinds of anonymous juries, and this is not a super anonymous jury like you have at a terrorism trial where by the end of the trial, all you know is they had numbers. It doesn't seem to be the kind of anonymity that jurors sometimes get to protect their safety or things like that. So, it's more of a milder version of an anonymous jury. But one thing I've seen with this jury that I've hardly ever seen with a jury is incredible attention to every witness. They turn in their chairs, they're pointed toward the witness, they're scribbling notes like mad. I've never seen so much as a juror yawn, although I did see Kid Cudi, he was yawning several times. SISAK: To your point, Larry, I think, you know, you talk about the anonymous jury, or at least the anonymity in that we don't know their names. These high profile cases, more and more, you're seeing judges take extra steps to protect the jury. And in the case of Sean Combs, you also had allegations of witness tampering, witness interference, leading to his arrest in September of 2024. So that could also explain why some of these witnesses are reluctant to come forward. NEUMEISTER: That's the main reason he wasn't given bail, is that they felt he was a threat to witnesses and had reached out to a couple of them. WALKER: Now, in New York, court cases are not televised. We do have sketch artists who are allowed to be in the courtroom, and then we are able to show those sketches. And we see a very different looking Diddy. His hair is completely gray, his goatee gray. He is allowed to wear his own clothes, as is Harvey Weinstein. Let's talk a little bit about what we're actually seeing that people aren't privy to. NEUMEISTER: Can't have dye, right, Mike? SISAK: What we've learned from this trial is that Sean Combs, according to his assistant who testified, was using Just For Men to hide gray hair and he had jet black hair up until the time he was arrested and put in jail last year. And then we also learned that hair dye is not allowed in jail. So in court, he has had this gray salt and pepper hair, goatee. He has been allowed to wear for the trial, sweaters, button down shirts, khakis and the like. It's a stark difference in look. NEUMEISTER: I'll tell you though, the guy is so involved with his defense, it's like off the charts, kind of amazing. I don't think I've ever seen this to this degree before. There was a witness, it was Kid Cudi, where at the end of his testimony, the prosecutors got him to say he believed Sean Combs was lying when he said he didn't know anything about his car when he brought it up. Kid Cudi's car was exploded in his driveway one day with a Molotov cocktail. And absolutely destroyed. And so he had a meeting with Sean Combs some weeks after that. And at the very end of the meeting, he said, brought up the car. And Sean Combs said, 'oh, what are you talking about? I don't know anything about that.' And after, as soon as that, the prosecutor finished asking the questions, got that response, then two lawyers, one on each side of Combs looked to him Combs said no, and only then did the lawyers inform the judge that there would be no more questioning. SISAK: I recall being in the courtroom earlier in the trial when some images were shown from some of the videotapes at issue here with these sex marathons that have become known in his parlance as "freak-offs." And there was a binder of some of these images, and Combs was sitting next to his lawyer and waved over, hey, I want to see those, and he's looking through them and he's holding the press, the public. We were not allowed to see these images. Their graphic images. The defendant, of course, was allowed to see them and he held them in a way that we could not see what he was looking at. And then he passed it back. And then other times he's hunched over a laptop computer looking at exhibits that are showing text messages and emails that were exchanged over the years with various people involved in the case. And then when there are breaks, we see him standing up, stretching, turning around, looking at his supporters in the gallery. His mother has been there. Some of his children have been there, some of his daughters have left the courtroom during the especially graphic testimony. But at other times, when his children are there, when his supporters are there, he's shaping his hands in the shape of a heart. He's pointing at them. He's saying, I love you. He's whispering. There was a moment when another reporter and I were sitting in the courtroom during a break and Sean Combs turns around, there's nobody in front of us and he asks us how we're doing. We say hi back to him because you're in such close proximity. We're only 10 feet apart or so. I'll pivot quickly to the Harvey Weinstein case where there's not as much of that because while Harvey Weinstein does have a contingent of supporters, it's mostly paid supporters, his publicist, his lawyers, his jury consultant. People that he will wave to and talk to and acknowledge as he's being wheeled into the courtroom. He uses a wheelchair to get in and out of court. One of the interesting things that ties the Sean Combs case and the Luigi Mangione case is one of the lawyers, Marc Agnifilo, represents both of those men. Karen Friedman Agnifilo is the lead defense attorney for Luigi Mangione. She is married to Marc Agnifilo. They are partners in the same law firm and Marc Agnifilo is ostensibly the lead attorney for Sean Combs. He is also assisting on Luigi Mangione's defense, both in the state and federal case. WALKER: In the beginning of the Combs case, the jury was shown that explosive video that the public already saw in the L.A. hotel hallway of Combs dragging Cassie and kicking her when she's on the ground and he made a public apology on his social media to her. And his lawyers have said that he's not a perfect person and he has anger issues, but he's not charged with domestic abuse. SISAK: The refrain from the defense has been that, if anything, there could have been domestic violence charges brought against Sean Combs back in 2016. Those charges would have been brought in a California court by Los Angeles police. There has not been any real discussion of an investigation in 2016 of any effort to charge Sean Combs with domestic violence at that time. So, in some sense, while it's a thread that the defense is pulling, that he's actually charged with sex trafficking and racketeering in this federal case, it almost is a bit of apples and oranges in the sense that the violence that the defenses conceding to, prosecutors allege, was part of the mechanism of the racketeer of the sex trafficking. In other words, they allege that Sean Combs used violence to keep people quiet, to people compliant. NEUMEISTER: And a lot of charges like domestic violence are all kind of things they could have brought against Sean Combs years ago. Well, there's a statute of limitations that would rule out certain charges. And certain charges just, there is no federal domestic violence charge. So when the feds go after somebody, they look for what kind of charges are federal crimes. And in this case, sex trafficking, bringing people across state lines to do illegal sex acts, or racketeering, which can involve many different things, including that 2016 tape of Cassie being beat up by Sean Combs by the Elevator Bank in that Los Angeles hotel. That, actually, is a centerpiece of the evidence against Combs in this case. WALKER: The point is that that hallway video of Diddy beating up Cassie is actually part of the case of racketeering because he's using violence to control people. NEUMEISTER: Listen, there's violence all through this, right Mike? SISAK: The Kid Cudi arc in this narrative, which is in 2011, Cassie, who's the longtime girlfriend of Sean Combs, starts dating Kid Cudi. Combs is upset about that, according to this witness, Capricorn Clark. Combs comes into her home holding a gun, kidnaps Capricorn Clark, takes her to Kid Cudi's home, where according to Clark, Combs was intent on killing Kid Codi. Now, Cudi was not there. He testified at this trial, so Combs is alleged wish of killing him did not come to fruition, it may be a bit of a crafty strategy by the defense in this case to own the things that they cannot otherwise explain away. They are owning the things the jury eventually is going to see. The video of the 2016 assault at the hotel in Los Angeles. A video, by the way, that was suppressed from public view until it aired last year on CNN. NEUMEISTER: And that is part of the racketeering charge, it's alleged that he used all of his employees and his whole security staff to cover up these things. So, when that happened in 2016 at that L.A. hotel, they paid like $100,000 to try to get the copy of the security video so it would never become public. WALKER: I think we've covered so much that I'm not sure what we have left to cover, although there probably is more. But are there any big points or big arcs that you think are worth mentioning? NEUMEISTER: In the beginning, the first week, it was all Cassie's testimony and there was so much evidence in everything and her testimony about sexual acts and such but last week it seems all about violence and threats and how he would have used his employees to cover up the crimes. SISAK: We've heard from Cassie about the freak-offs. We've heard from some of the male sex workers that were involved. And then we're seeing other pieces of evidence that prosecutors say show the depravity of these events and then also the network of people that Combs relied on to keep them secret, to keep going, but to keep them secret. WALKER: Well, I think that that about sums it up. The judge in the beginning said he wanted to be done by July 4th. SISAK: We've had people ask us, all three of us that have been in court at various times, what do you think of the prosecution's case so far? And as reporters, we don't have opinions on things, but I would urge caution whenever there's a case, let the presentation play out, get to the end of the prosecution case, but also listen to the cross-examination, listen to what the defense puts on. Often defendants will not testify on their own behalf because it can be perilous, but there are cases where it might be advantageous. NEUMEISTER: When there's celebrities involved, it's a wild card, where you really can't predict what's going to happen and how that's going to play into the jurors' minds and everything else. WALKER: And I think that's a good place to leave it. Thank you both. Mike Sisak, Larry Neumeister. I'm Julie Walker. Thank you for listening. ___
