Latest news with #Nicholson
Black America Web
13 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Black America Web
SCOTUS Refuses To Review Discrimination Case By Black Dancer Allegedly Told By Club Owners There Were ‘Too Many Black Girls'
Source: CHIP SOMODEVILLA / Getty On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal filed by a Black dancer in Houston, Texas, who claims she has been discriminated against by several Houston clubs that place limits on how many Black women they will hire to perform. According to The Hill, professional dancer Chanel Nicholson filed her lawsuit in August 2021, claiming the clubs listed as defendants violated a federal law against racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts by limiting the number of Black dancers who could work the same shift as a matter of policy. For example, Nicholson said a manager at the club Cover Girls told her she could not perform at the venue in November 2017 because there were already 'too many Black girls' in the club. She also claimed that, in August 2021, she was told by the manager at a club called Splendor that the club was 'not taking any more Black girls.' Now, off the top, anyone who has been paying attention to the way the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has treated discrimination cases recently might assume Nicholson's suit was dismissed for one (or both) of two reasons: she's a Black woman who is a dancer — so the courts are simply not taking her seriously for reasons rooted in systemic misogynoir — or she's not a white person filing a suit over a DEI policy, as that's pretty much what one has to be to get a federal anti-discrimination claim to shake their way under the current administration. Both of these might have been the real reason the plaintiff's case was dismissed, but the reason a district court gave was that the statute of limitations was up — despite the appearance that it wasn't. From the Hill: Nicholson said she was denied work repeatedly due to the quota, including in 2014, 2017 and 2021. However, her case was dismissed by a district court that concluded the applicable statute of limitations clock began ticking in 2014; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the decision. She asked the justices to decide when the statute of limitations starts to run in a claim of 'pattern or practice' of racial discrimination. They declined to hear her case. So, how exactly do the courts simply decide the statute of limitations clock started in 2014, and ignore the alleged offenses that happened years later? Well, apparently, all but two justices, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, determined that the more recent discriminatory acts alleged by Nicholson were not acts that stood on their own, but 'continued effects' of past discrimination that is no longer actionable due to the statute. Brown Jackson wrote in her dissenting opinion that the court's decision to side with the district court 'flouts this Court's clear precedents.' 'We have long held that '[e]ach discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act,' regardless of whether similar instances of discrimination have occurred in the past,' she wrote. 'Because the Fifth Circuit's contrary ruling was patently erroneous, this Court should have granted Nicholson's petition and summarily reversed the judgment.' Jackson's opinion focused on the allegations from 2017 and 2021, arguing that both alleged 'discrete' instances of discrimination occurred within the four years before Nicholson filed her lawsuit, making the 5th Circuit's claim that the statute of limitations was up 'patently erroneous.' 'To conclude that Nicholson's claims are time-barred because there were earlier instances of discriminatory treatment, as the Fifth Circuit did, impermissibly inoculates the clubs' more recent discriminatory conduct,' Jackson wrote. 'If sustained discriminatory motivation is all that is required to transform recent, racially discriminatory acts into the 'continued effects' of earlier discriminatory conduct, then past discrimination could inexplicably prevent recovery for later, similarly unlawful conduct.' It really makes no sense for a court to conclude that different acts of racism committed by different people at different times are all part of the same 'continued effects' of the first act of racial discrimination. It's almost as if racial discrimination is treated like a trivial thing until white people are filing suits over diversity efforts. We're just basically repackaging white supremacy — that's how we're making America great again. SEE ALSO: Tulsa's 1st Black Mayor Proposes Reparations Plan For Descendants Of Race Massacre, But Will It Work In Trump's America? Op-Ed: Misogynoir Is Why Many Black Women Don't Care That Telvin Osborne's Killer Won't Be Charged SEE ALSO SCOTUS Refuses To Review Discrimination Case By Black Dancer Allegedly Told By Club Owners There Were 'Too Many Black Girls' was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
USA Today
20 hours ago
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Exotic dancer says strip clubs turned away Black dancers. Supreme Court won't get involved.
Exotic dancer says strip clubs turned away Black dancers. Supreme Court won't get involved. Show Caption Hide Caption Religious charter school case lands at Supreme Court SCOTUS hears religious charter school case WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 2 declined to take up a Black adult entertainer's attempt to sue several Houston-area strip clubs for alleged racial discrimination. Chanel Nicholson has accused the clubs of limiting the number of Black dancers on stage at one time. The lower courts dismissed her class action lawsuit saying she waited too long to bring her challenge. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that decision was "patently erroneous" and the Supreme Court should have intervened. But only one other justice, Sonia Sotomayor, agreed. More: Two men fought for jobs in a river-town mill. 50 years later, the nation is still divided. There's a four-year statute of limitations for claims brought under the federal law guaranteeing racial equality in contractual relationships and a federal district judge said that clock started in 2014 when Nicholson first began working at the clubs. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed that decision. Nicholson argues the clock reset every time she was turned away from the stage. In November of 2017, for example, she said she was barred from performing at one club after being told there were 'too many Black girls' working already. She filed her initial suit in 2021 after she said she was again discriminated against. Attorneys for the strip clubs say the statute of limitations applies unless the charge is a hostile work environment, which was not Nicholson's initial claim. Nicholson initially represented herself when filing her appeal but now has attorneys who say the lower courts are divided over whether the statute of limitations can also be waived when someone alleges a pattern of discrimination. Those are among the most important civil rights claims, her attorneys argue. And there should be no artificial cut off, they told the court, when the discriminatory act 'is ongoing and the reason for it is still visible in the mirror.'
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Exotic dancer says strip clubs turned away Black dancers. Supreme Court won't get involved.
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 2 declined to take up a Black adult entertainer's attempt to sue several Houston-area strip clubs for alleged racial discrimination. Chanel Nicholson has accused the clubs of limiting the number of Black dancers on stage at one time. The lower courts dismissed her class action lawsuit saying she waited too long to bring her challenge. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that decision was "patently erroneous" and the Supreme Court should have intervened. But only one other justice, Sonia Sotomayor, agreed. More: Two men fought for jobs in a river-town mill. 50 years later, the nation is still divided. There's a four-year statute of limitations for claims brought under the federal law guaranteeing racial equality in contractual relationships and a federal district judge said that clock started in 2014 when Nicholson first began working at the clubs. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed that decision. Nicholson argues the clock reset every time she was turned away from the stage. In November of 2017, for example, she said she was barred from performing at one club after being told there were 'too many Black girls' working already. She filed her initial suit in 2021 after she said she was again discriminated against. Attorneys for the strip clubs say the statute of limitations applies unless the charge is a hostile work environment, which was not Nicholson's initial claim. Nicholson initially represented herself when filing her appeal but now has attorneys who say the lower courts are divided over whether the statute of limitations can also be waived when someone alleges a pattern of discrimination. Those are among the most important civil rights claims, her attorneys argue. And there should be no artificial cut off, they told the court, when the discriminatory act 'is ongoing and the reason for it is still visible in the mirror.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court rejects exotic dancer's racial discrimination case
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Jackson, Sotomayor dissent as Supreme Court turns away Black dancer's discrimination appeal
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a Black dancer's appeal in her discrimination lawsuit against several Houston clubs, drawing dissent from two of the high court's liberal justices. Chanel Nicholson filed suit against the clubs in August 2021, claiming they maintained a policy that limited the number of Black dancers who could work the same shift, in violation of federal law prohibiting racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts. Nicholson said she was denied work repeatedly due to the quota, including in 2014, 2017 and 2021. However, her case was dismissed by a district court that concluded the applicable statute of limitations clock began ticking in 2014; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the decision. She asked the justices to decide when the statute of limitations starts to run in a claim of 'pattern or practice' of racial discrimination. They declined to hear her case. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that their fellow justices got it wrong by refusing to consider Nicholson's appeal. The appeals court panel determined the more recent discriminatory acts against Nicholson were the 'continued effects' of past race-based exclusion and, thus, not actionable on their own — a holding Jackson said 'flouts this Court's clear precedents.' 'We have long held that '[e]ach discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act,' regardless of whether similar instances of discrimination have occurred in the past,' she wrote. 'Because the Fifth Circuit's contrary ruling was patently erroneous, this Court should have granted Nicholson's petition and summarily reversed the judgment.' Jackson homed in on two instances where Nicholson was turned away: in November 2017 and August 2021. Nicholson said a manager at one club, Cover Girls, told her she could not perform in November 2017 because there were already 'too many Black girls' in the club. She took a hiatus from dancing from 2018-21, but maintained her license and access agreements. Then, in August 2021, she attempted to return to performing at a club called Splendor — but a manager told her the club was 'not taking any more Black girls.' The alleged instances of discriminatory treatment violated her contractual right to 'se[t] her own schedule' and 'arrive and leave the premises at any time without penalty,' according to the dancer. Jackson argued that both alleged 'discrete' instances of discrimination occurred within the four-year period before Nicholson filed suit in August 2021. She called the 5th Circuit's analysis of the statute of limitations 'patently erroneous.' 'To conclude that Nicholson's claims are time barred because there were earlier instances of discriminatory treatment, as the Fifth Circuit did, impermissibly inoculates the clubs' more recent discriminatory conduct,' Jackson wrote. 'If sustained discriminatory motivation is all that is required to transform recent, racially discriminatory acts into the 'continued effects' of earlier discriminatory conduct, then past discrimination could inexplicably prevent recovery for later, similarly unlawful conduct,' she said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Jackson, Sotomayor dissent as Supreme Court turns away Black dancer's discrimination appeal
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a Black dancer's appeal in her discrimination lawsuit against several Houston clubs, drawing dissent from two of the high court's liberal justices. Chanel Nicholson filed suit against the clubs in August 2021, claiming they maintained a racist policy which limited the number of Black dancers who could work the same shift, in violation of federal law prohibiting racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts. Nicholson said she was denied work repeatedly over the quota, including in 2014, 2017 and 2021. However, her case was dismissed by a district court that concluded the applicable statute of limitations clock began ticking in 2014; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision. She asked the justices to decide when the statute of limitations starts to run in a claim of 'pattern or practice' of racial discrimination. They declined to hear her case. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that their fellow justices got it wrong by refusing to consider Nicholson's appeal. The appeals court panel determined that the more recent discriminatory acts against Nicholson were the 'continued effects' of past race-based exclusion and, thus, not actionable on their own — a holding Jackson said 'flouts this Court's clear precedents.' 'We have long held that '[e]ach discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act,' regardless of whether similar instances of discrimination have occurred in the past,' she wrote. 'Because the Fifth Circuit's contrary ruling was patently erroneous, this Court should have granted Nicholson's petition and summarily reversed the judgment.' Jackson homed in on two instances where Nicholson was turned away: in November 2017 and August 2021. Nicholson said a manager at one club, Cover Girls, told her she could not perform in November 2017 because there were already 'too many Black girls' in the club. She took a hiatus from dancing between 2018 and 2021, but maintained her license and access agreements. Then, in August 2021, she attempted to return to performing at a club called Splendor — but a manager told her the club was 'not taking any more Black girls.' The alleged instances of discriminatory treatment violated her contractual right to 'se[t] her own schedule' and 'arrive and leave the premises at any time without penalty,' according to the dancer. Jackson argued that both alleged 'discrete' instances of discrimination occurred within the four-year period before Nicholson filed suit in August 2021. She called the 5th Circuit's analysis of the statute of limitations 'patently erroneous.' 'To conclude that Nicholson's claims are time barred because there were earlier instances of discriminatory treatment, as the Fifth Circuit did, impermissibly inoculates the clubs' more recent discriminatory conduct,' Jackson wrote. 'If sustained discriminatory motivation is all that is required to transform recent, racially discriminatory acts into the 'continued effects' of earlier discriminatory conduct, then past discrimination could inexplicably prevent recovery for later, similarly unlawful conduct,' she said.
