قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The Supreme Court's prejudices cited in employment cases

The Supreme Court's prejudices cited in employment cases



Referring to a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a discrimination case, a federal appeals court has reintroduced discrimination and retaliation fees that a worker has filed for a Washington county.

Claude Brown had claimed that King-based King County in Seattle had discriminated against him on the basis of race by rejecting his applications for a railroad-in-training position in the 2012 and 2014 campaign cycles and by removing him from a functioning technical coach position, according to Tuesday's decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. .

In Claude Brown v. King County the worker also claimed that the county had retaliated against him for filing discrimination and retaliation with the King County Civil Rights Office, according to the decision.

The U.S. District Court in Seattle granted King County a summary judgment dismissing the case.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit adjourned the filing of the case pending the decision of the US Supreme Court Comcast Corp. mot National Association of African American-Owned Media.

In that case, the High Court unanimously found that the 9th Circle had used the wrong test in assessing comedian-turned-media entrepreneur Byron Allen's $ 20 billion lawsuit against Comcast. https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20200323/NEWS06/91

2333655/Su Supreme-Court-tosses-acentians-racial-bias-suit-against-Comcast-Byron-Allen Chapter19659002 dollars T To save, a complainant must first appeal and ultimately prove that but for race it would not have suffered, "Justice Neil Gorsuch said in the decision.

Upon reinstating Brown's claim of discrimination, a unanimous three-judge appealed court panel," Brown has shown that he is a member of a protected class, that he applied for and was qualified for the RSIT position and the ATT position, that he was repeatedly rejected for the RSIT position and that he was prematurely removed from the ATT position despite his work satisfactorily.

The decision said his former union president asserted that King County would never hire a "braided supervisor." It said that Mr. Brown and several other minority employees claimed that they were not qualified to test for the RSIT position in 2011 and that he was not qualified to be trained for the RSIT position in 2012 despite finishing in fourth place in the test behind the top three candidates.

The decision also stated that his 2014 RSIT application was rejected on the grounds that it was incomplete, even though he had previously submitted the same application and that it had not been rejected on that ground before.

"Several other minority rail operators submitted statements that the King County employment system was properly rigged due to race," it also said in the decision to reintroduce Brown's discrimination claims.

Mr. Brown has also stated a first case of retaliation, the decision said, by reintroducing this statement.

Lawyers in the case could not be reached for comment


Source link