Two Supreme Court Decisions Narrow Scope of Employers’ Title VII Liability

[phkrause]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions that will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prove that employers violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is the federal law designed to protect employees from discrimination on the basis of factors such as race, sex, and religion.

Rest of article:

http://religiousliberty.tv/two-supreme-c...-liability.html

[olger]

Good.

Nice to see the conservative justices win one, after two landmark liberal decisions (Obamacare and homosexual marriage).

Make it a great week,

`G

[Tom Wetmore]

What exactly do you think is good about them, other than they are consistent with some politically conservative ideology? Do you even know what the cases may mean for the church dealing with religious discrimination in employment? Do you think that those cases will be a good thing the next time we are trying to help a member that loses their job over a Sabbath issue?

As for your knee jerk reaction that it balances out the Obamacare and homosexual rights cases, a seriously apples to oranges comparison, rather like comparing a taxation case with doping in sports!

[joeb]

After reading the article I don't see a problem.

Before the court overturn Vance an employer was almost automatically guilty of anything one of their employees did. This decision balances the scales.

As to the second case, having to prove discrimination before retaliation comes into effect is good. Before it was too easy to sue over almost everything.

[phkrause]

What exactly do you think is good about them, other than they are consistent with some politically conservative ideology? Do you even know what the cases may mean for the church dealing with religious discrimination in employment? Do you think that those cases will be a good thing the next time we are trying to help a member that loses their job over a Sabbath issue?

As for your knee jerk reaction that it balances out the Obamacare and homosexual rights cases, a seriously apples to oranges comparison, rather like comparing a taxation case with doping in sports!

[olger]

After reading the article I don't see a problem.

Before the court overturn Vance an employer was almost automatically guilty of anything one of their employees did. This decision balances the scales.

As to the second case, having to prove discrimination before retaliation comes into effect is good. Before it was too easy to sue over almost everything.

ForsOOth.

g

[olger]

What exactly do you think is good about them, other than they are consistent with some politically conservative ideology? Do you even know what the cases may mean for the church dealing with religious discrimination in employment? Do you think that those cases will be a good thing the next time we are trying to help a member that loses their job over a Sabbath issue?