Latest news with #AmericaFirstLegalFoundation
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court revives straight woman's workplace discrimination claim
A unanimous Supreme Court sided with a straight woman in her discrimination appeal, ruling that a lower court applied too strict a standard against her. After being passed over and demoted in favor of a lesbian woman and a gay man, Marlean Ames brought a discrimination claim against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services. But as a member of a 'majority' group, she had a greater burden to show what courts call 'background circumstances' that would 'support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' The legal question at the Supreme Court was whether majority-group plaintiffs need to show such circumstances. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court said the additional requirement is inconsistent with federal law and Supreme Court precedent, so ti sent the case back for further litigation. Among the parties who agreed that the lower court ruling against Ames got it wrong were not only the America First Legal Foundation, a group founded by Donald Trump ally Stephen Miller, but also the federal government during the Biden administration. 'The 'background circumstances' requirement has no basis in Title VII's text, and it contradicts this Court's precedent, including the Court's assurances that all plaintiffs may proceed according to the same standards,' the government wrote in a December filing from the office of then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars the failure or refusal 'to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.' Ohio's Republican attorney general, Dave Yost, defended the state. His office cast the 'background circumstances' rule as a simple application of Supreme Court precedent that's 'just another way of asking whether the circumstances surrounding an employment decision, if otherwise unexplained, suggest that the decision was because of a protected characteristic.' 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
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Allies Sue John Roberts To Give White House Control Of Court System
Close allies of President Trump are asking a judge to give the White House control over much of the federal court system. In a little-noticed lawsuit filed last week, the America First Legal Foundation sued Chief Justice John Roberts and the head of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts The case ostensibly proceeds as a FOIA lawsuit, with the Trump-aligned group seeking access to judiciary records. But, in doing so, it asks the courts to cede massive power to the White House: the bodies that make court policy and manage the judiciary's day-to-day operations should be considered independent agencies of the executive branch, the suit argues, giving the President, under the conservative legal movement's theories, the power to appoint and dismiss people in key roles. Multiple legal scholars and attorneys TPM spoke with reacted to the suit with a mixture of dismay, disdain and laughter. Though the core legal claim is invalid, they said, the suit seems to be a part of the fight that the administration launched and has continued to escalate against the courts over the past several months: ignoring a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of a wrongly removed Salvadoran man, providing minimal notice to people subject to the Alien Enemies Act, flaunting an aggressive criminal case against a state court judge. The executive branch has tried to encroach on the power of the judiciary in other ways too, prompting a degree of consternation and alarm unusual for the normally-staid Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. As TPM has documented, DOGE has already caused disorder at the courts and sent out mass emails to judges and other judiciary employees demanding a list of their recent accomplishments. Per one recent report in the New York Times, federal judges have expressed concern that Trump could direct the U.S. Marshals Service — an executive branch agency tasked with protecting judges and carrying out court orders — to withdraw protection. These are all facets of an escalating campaign to erode the independence of the judiciary, experts told TPM. The lawsuit demonstrates another prong of it: close allies of the president are effectively asking the courts to rule that they should be managed by the White House. 'It's like using an invalid legal claim to taunt the judiciary,' Anne Joseph O'Connell, a professor at Stanford University Law School, told TPM. 'To the extent this lawsuit has any value other than clickbait, maybe the underlying message is, we will let our imaginations run wild,' Peter M. Shane, a constitutional law scholar at NYU Law School, told TPM. 'The Trump administration and the MAGA community will let our imaginations run wild in our attempts to figure out ways to make the life of the judiciary miserable, to the extent you push back against Trump.' The America First Legal Foundation filed the suit on April 22. It came after the group first filed a FOIA request in July 2024 to the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts asking for 'all records referring or relating to (1) Clarence Thomas or (2) Samuel Alito' and all communications with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), starting in April 2023. Both Democrats have led investigations into the influence of wealthy political donors' money on the court, the conservative legal movement's long-term plan to capture the high court, and alleged ethical violations by Justices Thomas and Alito. The Judicial Conference, which is composed of senior federal judges and operates via an array of committees, sets policy for the judiciary. Ethan V. Torrey, legal counsel of the Supreme Court, rejected the request in a September 2024 letter, per an exhibit filed along with the complaint. Daniel Z. Epstein filed the FOIA request, and is listed as lead attorney on the lawsuit. Epstein currently represents President Trump in his personal capacity in the lawsuit against CBS over an October 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Stephen Miller, the longtime Trump aide, founded the America First Legal Foundation in April 2021, describing it as the 'long-awaited answer to the ACLU.' Over the next few years, the group succeeded in slowing down or blocking several Biden administration policies, often by filing in the Northern District of Texas's Amarillo courthouse, which is presided over by a judge who is notably receptive to conservative arguments. Its priorities often match those of Trump's second term; it attacked diversity programs, protections for LGBT students, immigration, and supposed 'wokeness' in corporate America. Miller himself has been a public driving force in the most aggressive and lawless elements of the second Trump administration's effort to bulldoze through civil liberties in the name of increasing the tempo of deportations. America First Legal did not return TPM's request for comment. When the suit was filed in April, it received a small round of coverage that focused on FOIA element of the claim. Legal experts suggested to TPM that the FOIA piece is something of a trojan horse. The Judicial Conference and Administrative Office's denial of the FOIA request provides standing to sue, and thereby ask a federal judge to declare that the two judicial bodies 'are subject to the FOIA as independent agencies within the executive branch.' In terms of importance, a judge finding that core parts of the judiciary are independent agencies of the executive branch would dwarf any FOIA material America First Legal might receive. The lawsuit itself seems to acknowledge this. At one point, in language channeling that of a protection racket, America First Legal observes that 'Federal courts rely on the executive branch for facility management and security. Federal judges, as officers of the courts, need resources to fulfill their constitutional obligations.' There is a level of irony here. For years, conservative legal scholars have pushed the idea that power in the executive is unitary, granting the President the ability to exert direct control over all federal officials who carry out federal law. It opens the door to a level of presidential power that hasn't been seen until this administration, and which the Supreme Court may ratify this term. This lawsuit asks the judiciary to extend that logic to its own operations, potentially dealing a fatal blow to judicial independence. This argument reaches a provocative peak when it comes to the Judicial Conference of the United States. There, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can appoint members to committees. The lawsuit says that this means Roberts may, at times, fall under the President's power — for FOIA purposes, of course. 'Accordingly, if the Chief Justice does indeed have this power to appoint officers, then he must be acting as an agency head, subjecting the Judicial Conference to the FOIA,' the suit reads. Melissa Murray, a professor at NYU Law, pointed out that the suit raises a number of bizarre scenarios. If it makes it to the Supreme Court, 'does the Chief Justice have to recuse himself?' she asked. 'It does seem like poking the bear,' she added. As of this writing, lawyers for Roberts and the U.S. Courts director have not appeared on the docket. In other cases filed against parts of the judiciary, the Justice Department's Civil Division has appointed attorneys. The DOJ did not return a request for comment. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts declined to comment. The Supreme Court also did not return requests for comment. This doesn't necessarily mean that federal courthouses will soon start serving Trump steaks, or that Kid Rock will be called on to provide filler sound during sidebar sessions. Blake Emerson, a professor at UCLA Law, called the suit's claims 'outlandish,' and said that if it somehow succeeded, it would grant the White House control over 'the means by which the judicial branch functionally operates.' O'Connell, the Stanford Law Professor, described it to TPM as more of an attempt to tell a story about 'how much power they think the executive should have' than a serious legal claim. 'There is no chance that this will prevail,' she said. Read the lawsuit here:
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court weighs 'reverse discrimination' case
The US Supreme Court appeared likely to rule in favor on Wednesday of an Ohio woman who claims she was the victim of "reverse discrimination" because she was passed over twice for jobs for candidates who were gay. Marlean Ames, 60, an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, is asking the court to revive a lawsuit she filed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bars discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and a number of major corporations are rolling back diversity and inclusion programs intended to combat systemic inequalities faced by minorities. America First Legal Foundation, a group founded by Stephen Miller, who is now the White House deputy chief of staff, filed a brief with the court in support of Ames, a straight white woman. Ames, a heterosexual woman, is arguing against lower court decisions that rejected her discrimination suit on the basis of precedent that members of majority groups must meet a higher bar for proving workplace bias than minorities. In its ruling, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said Ames had not established "background circumstances" showing that the state agency is "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." The requirement that she present "background circumstances" is unconstitutional and being unfairly applied only to members of majority groups bringing job discrimination cases, Ames said. A majority of the justices on the Supreme Court, both conservatives and liberals, appeared sympathetic to the arguments made by Ames's lawyer, Xiao Wang. "We're in radical agreement today," quipped Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the six conservatives on the bench. - 'Equal justice under law' - Addressing Wang, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, said: "So all you want for this case is a really short opinion that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it's because you're gay or because you're straight, is prohibited?" "That's right, your honor," said Wang. Ames was simply seeking "four words on the side of this building -- equal justice under law," he said. "At bottom, all Ms Ames is asking for is equal justice under law, not more justice, but certainly not less, and certainly not less because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion," Wang added. Elliot Gaiser, the solicitor general of Ohio, arguing on behalf of the midwestern state, rejected Ames's claims that she failed to get promotions because she was heterosexual. "She could not establish that anybody was motivated by sexual orientation or even knew her sexual orientation," Gaiser said, or that they knew the sexual orientation of the people who obtained the jobs she was seeking. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberals on the nine-member court, said there was "something suspicious" about the hirings that can "give rise to an inference of discrimination." "She was a 20-year employee, great reviews, and then all of a sudden, she's not hired, and someone's hired who's gay, doesn't have her level of college experience, and didn't even want the job," Sotomayor said. The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its ruling in the case this summer. cl/bfm
CBS News
25-02-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Supreme Court to hear arguments in "reverse discrimination" case
Washington — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in an Ohio woman's bid to revive a lawsuit alleging "reverse discrimination" after she said she was denied a promotion and demoted because she is straight. The case centers on what a plaintiff alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must prove. Marlean Ames, the woman who brought the case, argues that a "background circumstances" requirement adopted by some lower courts unfairly imposes a higher burden on her as a heterosexual woman. The standard requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to put forth more evidence to show that their employer discriminated against them. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is reviewing the case as President Trump has taken sweeping actions to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs and policies throughout the federal government and fired workers overseeing the initiatives. In the private sector, large companies like McDonald's, Ford and Walmart have walked back their DEI initiatives in recent months in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions. That landmark ruling prompted more lawsuits from conservative groups targeting diversity initiatives at corporations. Conservative legal groups like the America First Legal Foundation are backing Ames in the case and have warned that the background circumstances rule forces courts to decide who is a member of a majority group. America First Legal Foundation was founded by Stephen Miller, who now serves as White House deputy chief of staff. "The central problem is how to decide who is the 'majority' and who is the 'minority,'" the group, which has sued companies over their diversity policies, wrote in a filing with the Supreme Court. "Surprisingly, courts have given this issue almost no attention, generally assuming that 'white men' (and, as below, heterosexuals) are the majority, and everyone else the minority." But others such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said that Ames is asking the court to "interpret Title VII in a way that ignores the realities of this country's persisting legacy of discrimination in evaluating disparate treatment claims." "Today, just as when Congress enacted Title VII, Black people and members of other marginalized groups are far more likely to endure employment discrimination than their majority-group counterparts," the group wrote. Allegations of reverse discrimination Ames started working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, the state's juvenile corrections system, in 2004 as an executive secretary and became a program administrator in 2014. During her time in that role, she received positive performance reviews, according to court filings. Ames applied for a promotion to bureau chief of quality assurance and improvement in 2019, but didn't get the job. Her supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is gay, said Ames and two others who applied failed to lay out their vision for the role, according to court filings from Ames' legal team. The position remained unfilled for months and eventually was offered to a gay woman who had been with the department for less time than Ames, her lawyers said in court papers. The woman didn't interview or apply for the job, and was less qualified than Ames, according to the attorneys. After Ames was denied the promotion, she was removed from her position as program administrator and told she could either return to her job as executive secretary or be fired. Accepting the demotion, though, would mean a significant pay cut — from $47.22 an hour to $28.40, according to court filings. Still, Ames chose to go back to her role as executive secretary and was replaced as program administrator by a gay man, her lawyers said. Ames sued the Department of Youth Services and alleged violations of Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex, which includes sexual orientation. Ames argued the department discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation. A federal district court ruled for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, finding that the department offered "legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons" for passing Ames over for the promotion. The court also concluded that she failed to satisfy the "background circumstances" requirement. Imposed by some courts, the standard requires a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group to show "background circumstances" that "support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority," or engages in reverse discrimination. Plaintiffs can make that showing by presenting evidence that a member of the relevant minority group — gay people, in Ames' case — made the employment decision at issue, or by presenting statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of a majority group. Ames asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to review the district court's decision. The appeals court also found that she failed to satisfy the "background circumstances" requirement and threw out her case. The three-judge panel first said that the decisions about Ames' positions were made by the department's director and assistant director, who are heterosexual. The 6th Circuit also found that Ames' only evidence of a pattern of discrimination was her own experience. The Supreme Court agreed in October to take up Ames' case. In filings with the Supreme Court, her lawyers argued that the "background circumstances" test infringes on the text of Title VII, Supreme Court precedent and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's own practices. They said the standard effectively adds words to the text of Title VII and imposes a new requirement on certain plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination — those in a majority group. Ames' lawyers also argued that the background circumstances requirement forces courts to draw lines that intentionally treat some plaintiffs less favorably because of protected characteristics. "That sort of line drawing does not eradicate discrimination. It perpetuates it," they wrote. Additionally, the lawyers noted that Ames would still have to demonstrate before a jury that she was intentionally discriminated against, but was "robbed" of the chance to do so because of the "background circumstances" requirement. But lawyers for the Ohio Department of Youth Services reiterated in a filing that the officials who made decisions about Ames' employment are straight and provided a nondiscriminatory reason for replacing her as program administrator: concerns about her vision for the department. The "background circumstances" requirement, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost wrote, is just another way of determining whether the circumstances surrounding an employment decision suggest that decision was because of a protected characteristic. The issue, Yost said, is how Ames decided to litigate her case, which he called "fatal" to her discrimination claim. "At the end of the day, Ames has not identified a single piece of evidence that suggests that sexual orientation played any role in the hiring decision at issue in her promotion claim," the state argued. Ohio officials said the background circumstances standard protects against "meritless" Title VII claims, which can "impose ruinous costs, especially on smaller businesses, that ultimately reduce employment, incent automation, and inflate prices for consumers — or consume Ohioans' tax dollars." "Maintaining a robust threshold step, by comparison, ensures that many specious or vexatious Title VII lawsuits die on the desk of busy plaintiffs' lawyers," Yost argued. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in December, the Biden administration argued the 6th Circuit was wrong to apply a heightened requirement that it said would foreclose some claims that would satisfy Title VII's standard for liability. The previous administration urged the Supreme Court to toss out the lower court's decision and send the case back for more proceedings. The Trump administration has not indicated that the government's position in the case has changed. A lawyer from the Justice Department will be participating in the argument alongside lawyers for Ames and the Ohio Department of Youth Services.
Japan Times
12-02-2025
- Business
- Japan Times
Disney softens diversity criteria used to determine manager pay
Disney is removing diversity from the criteria for determining manager compensation, saying leaders will now be assessed, in part, on how well they uphold company values and incorporate different perspectives. Disney is also sunsetting the Reimagine Tomorrow inclusion program, which had drawn controversy. The conservative America First Legal Foundation filed a federal civil rights complaint against the company last year, claiming the program included directions for hiring that amounted to discrimination. The changes were announced in an internal memo from Chief Human Resources Officer Sonia Coleman sent to employees Tuesday. The Burbank, California-based entertainment giant is the latest company to soften its focus on diversity, equity and inclusion amid a growing backlash against such policies by predominantly conservative groups. In recent weeks, companies including McDonald's, and Walmart have rolled back DEI programs, with President Donald Trump's administration increasingly questioning their legality. "What won't change is our commitment to fostering a company culture where everyone belongs and everyone can excel, enabling us to deliver the globally appealing entertainment that drives our business,' Coleman said in the memo. As part of the change, internal employee organizations devoted to particular groups are being renamed Belonging Employee Resource Groups to highlight that they are focused on strengthening the workplace experience rather than the business as a whole. They were previously called Business Employee Resource Group. Axios reported earlier on the changes, adding that they also include different language in the content warnings that run before some films on the Disney+ streaming service. Instead of saying a movie "includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of peoples or cultures,' the new wording says "this program is presented as originally created and may contain stereotypes or negative depictions,' Axios reported.
