Latest news with #RehabilitationActof1973
Politico
02-06-2025
- Business
- Politico
Cuts and patriotism essays
With help from Lawrence Ukenye and PJI participant Diamy Wang QUICK FIX TIGHTEN THE PURSE: President Donald Trump wants the Department of Labor to do less. A lot less. Budget documents released Friday propose eliminating DOL's Women's Bureau, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and Job Corps, while relocating the Bureau of Labor Statistics into the Commerce Department, as your host reported for Pro subscribers. BLS would also be put under the 'policy direction of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs,' a change that has the potential to politicize its operations and unsettle Wall Street and others who rely on its reports. DOL would reduce headcount to roughly 10,800, down more than one quarter from the nearly 14,800 staffers at the tail end of the Biden administration. About 2,700 DOL employees are already headed out after accepting Trump's exit incentives, and DOL is trying to lay off hundreds at OFCCP. (That plan is on hold pending resolution of a lawsuit brought in California by labor unions and others.) The budget plan also proposes slashing funding at the Bureau of International Labor Affairs by close to 38 percent, while many other parts of the agency would also see less funding — including the Wage and Hour Division and Mine Safety and Health Administration — though to a much lesser degree. Both would see 10 percent reductions from their current levels. Some advocates have argued that these parts of DOL are already stretched too thin to effectively enforce federal law. For instance, WHD has just over 600 investigators to probe wage theft and child labor abuse nationwide — the fewest in more than half-century, according to a report released last week by Rutgers University and Northwestern University. One branch notably unaffected by the proposed cuts: Office of Labor-Management Standards, which imposes reporting requirements on labor unions, as well as employers that enlist anti-union consultants. OLMS' budget would stay at $49 million. 'The Budget focuses the Department on its highest priority functions and disinvests in programs that are wasteful, duplicative, unproven, non-essential, or ineffective,' the proposal states. Outside of DOL, both the National Labor Relations Board and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are calling for less funding, though their cuts would be far smaller by comparison. The administration proposed a 4.7 percent reduction for the NLRB. The EEOC would get a nearly $20 million haircut to its $455 million funding level. Both agencies had faced furlough threats in recent years due to budget constraints. The NLRB plans to absorb the hit by reducing its headcount by nearly 100 people, mainly those who are taking advantage of the administration's deferred resignation program or early retirement offer. The EEOC's smaller budget is also notable because it would be tasked with enforcing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 — which protects workers with disabilities from discrimination involving federal contractors — taking over from OFCCP. EEOC already handles other aspects of that law. Congress traditionally treats administration budget proposals merely as wish lists and draws up its own plans for the federal budget. But the Trump administration is going as far as it can — and then some, according to the Government Accountability Office— to put its vision in place unilaterally and essentially telling lawmakers to bless it retroactively, as evidenced by DOL's dismantling of OFCCP and Job Corps already underway. — Meanwhile, over at HHS: 'Trump cuts threaten safety training for America's most dangerous jobs,' from Reuters. GOOD MORNING. It's Monday, June 2. Welcome back to Morning Shift, your go-to tipsheet on labor and employment-related words: French ham trucks. Send feedback, tips and exclusives to nniedzwiadek@ lukenye@ rdugyala@ and gmott@ Follow us on X at @NickNiedz and @Lawrence_Ukenye. And Signal @nickniedz.94. ICYMI: The Conversation kicked off with Dr. Oz In the premiere episode of The Conversation, Dasha Burns sat down with Dr. Mehmet Oz — now leading the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — for a candid talk on drug prices, potential Medicaid cuts and why he's getting early morning calls from President Donald Trump. Plus, POLITICO's Jonathan Martin dished on the Ohio governor's race (featuring Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy and former Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel), and Kyle Cheney unpacked Trump's legal battle over 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Watch the full episode on YouTube. And don't miss a moment — subscribe now on Apple Podcasts or Spotify to get new episodes when they drop. Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories. AROUND THE AGENCIES ADVENTURES IN PUBLIC SERVICE: The Office of Personnel Management last week unveiled a pair of new policies toward the Trump administration's drastic shift in how workers are hired at the federal government. One deals with the Senior Executive Service, non-political appointees who hold some of the highest-ranking management roles in the civil service, and the other addresses the federal hiring system more broadly and is partially tied to a law passed in 2024 aimed at promoting skills-based hiring practices. Both are heavily infused with the Trump administration's anti-DEI ethos, and the latter of the two goes a step further to direct agencies to stop collecting or publishing demographic data of their workforces. The merit hiring plan also empowers political leadership to play a greater role throughout the hiring process, and lays out a series of essay questions for applicants to answer to gauge their patriotism — including one about which of the president's executive orders is 'significant' to them and how they'd work to carry it out. (Applicants also have to certify that they're not outsourcing their answers to AI.) The SES memo strips away some writing requirements to focus on resume-based initial screening. It also says that OPM is developing an 80-hour course for SES employees and aspirants lecturing them on 'President Trump's Executive Orders and other matters necessary to ensure that SES officials uphold the Constitution and the rule of law and effectively serve the American people.' OPM is looking to roll out that training program by Sept. 1. More agency news: 'Trump's fiscal 2026 budget would strip trans federal workers of insurance coverage,' from the Government Executive. Even more: 'Education Department Targets Pregnant, LGBTQ Staff Protections,' from Bloomberg. On The Hill HOW TRUMP GOT TO HAI: Trump's decision to green-light sale of U.S. Steel came after GOP lawmakers in Pennsylvania warned administration officials that blocking the deal could lead to staggering job losses throughout the Rust Belt. Reps. Mike Kelly and Dan Meuser were among several Pennsylvania Republicans who pressed the administration to change course after Trump routinely insisted on the campaign trail that he was opposed to the deal. Nippon recently announced it would increase its investment in U.S. Steel's infrastructure and ensured the company would remain based in the United States, although the White House has yet to confirm the details of the agreement. Former President Joe Biden moved to block the sale shortly before leaving office after unions, including the United Steelworkers, launched a fierce lobbying effort to keep the company domestically owned. Our Ari Hawkins and Meredith Lee Hill have more. More hill news: 'Josh Hawley and the Republican Effort to Love Labor,' from The New Yorker. In the Workplace DISPARATE IMPACT DISSIPATES: The Trump administration's decision to drop the use of data to demonstrate discriminatory effects is quickly having wide-ranging effects across agencies and in court. The disparate impact theory was designed as a way to cover instances where discriminatory intent is not overt or direct. 'The legal theory has been consistently recognized by the Supreme Court, written into federal regulations and enshrined in employment law by Congress. But President Donald Trump declared it unconstitutional in April, issuing an executive order that kicked off an intense review of civil rights regulations, enforcement actions and settled cases,' The Washington Post reports. The EEOC under acting Chair Andrea Lucas is among the agencies that has stopped relying on such analyses. More workplace news: "Don't Call It a Side Hustle. These Americans Are 'Polyworking',' from The New York Times. Even more: 'Pension fund investors demand Elon Musk work 40-hour week at Tesla,' from the Financial Times. IN THE STATES GIVING IT ANOTHER GO: California labor groups are attempting to take another stab at raising the state's minimum wage after a similar attempt narrowly failed last November, our Will McCarthy reports for Pro subscribers. The Living Wage for All campaign seeks to raise Los Angeles County's minimum wage to $25 an hour with hopes of eventually going statewide with a push for a $20 per hour wage as a likely floor. California's Prop 32, a ballot measure to raise the state's pay floor to $18 an hour, failed by slightly more than a percentage point. Advocates would need to file the initiative with the secretary of state's office later this year to begin gathering signatures in hopes of getting the question in front of voters next year. More states news: 'Backlog, dismissals continue to grow in Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries,' from the Salem Statesman Journal. Unions FIRST IN SHIFT: The AFL-CIO is launching a six-figure ad buy targeting several House Republicans over their support of the GOP's reconciliation package that includes cuts to Medicaid. The ads, which slam members' votes to 'gut Medicaid' as 'unacceptable,' will run on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram and on local news sites. Republican lawmakers targeted by the organization's campaign include Reps. Scott Perry (Pa.), Nick Begich (Alaska), Max Miller (Ohio), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa), Derrick Van Orden (Wis.) and Tom Barrett (Mich.). TEACHER TRAINING: The American Federation of Teachers and CareerWise, a youth apprenticeship program, launched the Education and Apprenticeship Accelerator last week across six Democratic-led states to diversify workforce development opportunities for high school students. California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina and Pennsylvania signed on to the initiative, which aims to connect policymakers with educational organizations, unions and other industry partners to create increased apprenticeship offerings and awareness of these programs. GAO released a report Wednesday highlighting the benefits of apprenticeships and identifying federal programs that could provide such opportunities. More union news: 'Mulgrew wins reelection by smallest margin yet,' from our Madina Touré. WHAT WE'RE READING — 'How Trump's Regulatory Rollbacks Are Increasing Costs on Americans,' from The New York Times. — 'Targeting DOGE, labor group puts up billboards warning of heat deaths at national parks,' from NBC News. THAT'S YOUR SHIFT!
Chicago Tribune
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Griffith student places second in state with doc on disability rights activist
A Griffith High School student recently placed second in Indiana's National History Day competition, which helped her documentary on a disability rights activist advance to the national competition. 'I was so proud of myself and everyone that helped me with it,' Natalie Wadkins, a junior at Griffith High School, said. 'I hope people take away that inclusion starts with them.' In the 10-minute documentary, Wadkins highlights the work of Kitty Cone, who was born with muscular dystrophy, and her fight for federal approval of Section 504 part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which stated that any program receiving federal funding couldn't exclude or discriminate against people with disabilities, Wadkins said. The law wasn't enforced for four years, Wadkins said, which sparked anger and frustration among people with disabilities, Wadkins said. So, Cone and other activists organized a sit-in at the San Francisco Federal Building, she said. The 504 sit-in began April 5, 1977, and the activists remained in the building for nearly a month, making it the longest sit-in inside a federal building in U.S. history, Wadkins said. Cone was a key component of the sit-in, Wadkins said, as she organized resources, like beds and first-aid, and connected with members of other organizations, like the Black Panthers, to grow the movement for the sit-in and disability rights. Ultimately, on April 28, 1977, the government implemented Section 504, Wadkins said. But, activists like Cone continued to push for expanded rights for people with disabilities, like the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, she said. After the sit-in, Cone went on to advocate for better accessibility, work protections and representation for people with disabilities, Wadkins said. Wadkins, who is the vice president of Griffith High School's Best Buddies program, said she chose to research the 504 sit-in because the topic of disability rights is important to her. As a member of Best Buddies, Wadkins said she spends time with students with intellectual disabilities. 'I see the barriers that they face,' Wadkins said. 'Best Buddies has shown me how important inclusion and advocacy are in real life, just every day. It's made me want to highlight the leaders that made their lives better.' Wadkins worked on the documentary for National History Day as part of her Advanced Placement U.S. History class. Wadkins began researching the 504 sit-in by reading books and articles, and listening to first-hand accounts of the sit-in, she said. Then, she wrote the script for the documentary and began gathering historical photos, video and audio clips, Wadkins said. As she edited the documentary together, Wadkins said she focused on pacing, emotional impact and accuracy. The National History Day competition begins at the district level, Wadkins said, and four students advance to the state level. Wadkins said four students submitted entries for the district level, so they all advanced to state. At the state level, Wadkins said her documentary was up against eight other documentaries. The judges had to choose four documentaries to advance to the final round, she said. When her documentary ended, Wadkins said one of the three judges sat back and said, 'wow.' They told her they liked how she put closed captions in the documentary, which provided accessibility for the hearing impaired. 'They said they enjoyed that I practice what I preach,' Wadkins said. 'They were really inspired by my passion and drive to this topic.' By placing second at the state level, Wadkins advanced to the national competition. Wadkins said she and another student from Indiana will go to the University of Maryland in June to compete. Griffith Public Schools Superintendent Leah Dumezich applauded Wadkins' accomplishment. 'Natalie is an example of a student who achieves in the classroom and out of the classroom,' Dumezich said in an email. 'She has demonstrated integrity, self-discipline, and genuine leadership qualities. We are very proud of her and wish her the best of luck.' Julie Larson, an English and Language Arts teacher at Griffith High School, said she helped Wadkins with editing the documentary. Larson said Wadkins found a topic that's 'really unique to talk about.' 'You can tell that there's passion there for her topic,' Larson said. 'I'm just thrilled for her.' At the national competition, Wadkins and thousands of other students will present their projects in various categories over the course of preliminary and final rounds. Wadkins said she's excited to advance to the national level, and she hopes her documentary will have an even greater impact at that level of the competition. 'I'm really excited. I'm grateful,' Wadkins said. 'Even if I don't win, I just want to educate more people on the topic.' akukulka@
New York Post
30-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Neil Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange: ‘I'm not finished'
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers. The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of 'lying' in their assertions before the high court. Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state. The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance. 4 Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch stands during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. Getty Images Counsel 'should be more careful with their words,' Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning. 'OK well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect,' Blatt responded. Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. 'Ms. Blatt,' Gorsuch told her, 'I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied.' 4 A general view of the Supreme Court building located at 1 First Street NE in Washington, DC on April 15, 2025. Christopher Sadowski 'OK,' she fired back. 'Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…' Gorsuch cut in, telling her, 'I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase.' 'You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying–' Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject. 4 Judge Neil Gorsuch is sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., April 10, 2017. REUTERS 'Ms. Blatt, if I might finish,' Gorsuch said, before continuing: 'But lying is another matter.' He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again. 'I'm not finished,' Gorsuch told her, raising his voice. 'Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt,' he then told her of the lying accusation. 4 A general view of the Supreme Court building located at 1 First Street NE in Washington, DC on April 15, 2025. Christopher Sadowski 'Fine, I withdraw,' she shot back. Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling. The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, 'I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry.'
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers. The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of "lying" in their assertions before the high court. Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state. 100 Days Of Injunctions, Trials And 'Teflon Don': Trump Second Term Meets Its Biggest Tests In Court The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance. Read On The Fox News App Counsel "should be more careful with their words," Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning. "OK well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect," Blatt responded. Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Review El Salvador Deportation Flight Case Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. "Ms. Blatt," Gorsuch told her, "I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied." "OK," she fired back. "Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…" Gorsuch cut in, telling her, "I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase." "You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying–" Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject. "Ms. Blatt, if I might finish," Gorsuch said, before continuing: "But lying is another matter." He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again. "I'm not finished," Gorsuch told her, raising his voice. "Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," he then told her of the lying accusation. "Fine, I withdraw," she shot back. Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling. The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, "I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry."Original article source: Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
Fox News
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers. The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of "lying" in their assertions before the high court. Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state. The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance. Counsel "should be more careful with their words," Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning. "Okay well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect," Blatt responded. Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. "Ms. Blatt," Gorsuch told her, "I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied." "Okay," she fired back. "Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…" Gorsuch cut in, telling her, "I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase." "You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying—" Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject. "Ms. Blatt, if I might finish," Gorsuch said, before continuing: "But lying is another matter." He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again. "I'm not finished," Grouch told her, raising his voice. "Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," he then told her of the lying accusation. "Fine, I withdraw," she shot back. Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling. The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, "I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry."
