I have been trying to read up on this (I cannot read legalese very well) but it seems to be positive for, let's say, white males. Because the significant harm has been lowered, it will make it easier for a white male to bring a case.
Stormy Sunset 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
@stormysunset97
·
Apr 21
Although it’s great that the Supreme Court has weighed in, there is already a law in place that protects workers from discriminatory practices. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does NOT exclude white people or, specifically, white men.
🇺🇸 Freedom Piper 🇺🇸
@FreeThinkerInc
·
Apr 21
Right, this was a ruling on Title VII…specifically that the appellate court interpretation of the standard required to bring a case was too high. So this ruling allows Title VII cases to be brought with a much lower standard and without a need to prove specific violations of
Show more
Freedom Piper 🇺🇸
@FreeThinkerInc
·
Apr 20
Patriot Roy Rogue has posted the prior decision from the appeals court, which SCOTUS has overturned. In particular, the assertion that any “materially significant harm” must be proven. By lowering the standard of proof, SCOTUS has now opened the door. 💪🇺🇸
Quote
Roy Rogue
@rogue185263
·
Apr 20
https://x.com/FreeThinkerInc/status/1781688729783988638?t=eJiWnsdrgptPjhmrCL233A&s=09
The decision seems to be exactly the opposite. The discrimination lawsuit was thrown out in lower courts because she did not show significant harm.
Scotus has ruled that she does not have to show significant harm and vacated the lower court ruling.
I have been trying to read up on this (I cannot read legalese very well) but it seems to be positive for, let's say, white males. Because the significant harm has been lowered, it will make it easier for a white male to bring a case.
Stormy Sunset 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 @stormysunset97 · Apr 21 Although it’s great that the Supreme Court has weighed in, there is already a law in place that protects workers from discriminatory practices. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does NOT exclude white people or, specifically, white men. 🇺🇸 Freedom Piper 🇺🇸 @FreeThinkerInc · Apr 21 Right, this was a ruling on Title VII…specifically that the appellate court interpretation of the standard required to bring a case was too high. So this ruling allows Title VII cases to be brought with a much lower standard and without a need to prove specific violations of Show more
Freedom Piper 🇺🇸 @FreeThinkerInc · Apr 20 Patriot Roy Rogue has posted the prior decision from the appeals court, which SCOTUS has overturned. In particular, the assertion that any “materially significant harm” must be proven. By lowering the standard of proof, SCOTUS has now opened the door. 💪🇺🇸 Quote Roy Rogue @rogue185263 · Apr 20 https://x.com/FreeThinkerInc/status/1781688729783988638?t=eJiWnsdrgptPjhmrCL233A&s=09
That's what I got out of it. So it's a win (for people who had a hard time winning - we know who).