#title vii discrimination

[556betrayed]

Sign and Share everywhere, brothers and sisters!!!

This union Bully speaks for the company: she does not speak for me or any other flight attendant represented by TWU 556. She is a company favorite of our Company Union!

[richmondflyingsquirrels]

can’t read the news bc journalists who don’t know anything about civil rights or employment law start publishing headlines suggesting my specialty doesn’t exist bc of an EO and then i read the EO to learn the journalists missed the important parts entirely to make up something the order didn’t do

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: River Page

Published: Feb 2, 2024

"Companies also cannot take race-motivated actions to maintain a demographically 'balanced' workforce." — Commissioner at Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Andrea R. Lucas in Reuters, June 29, 2023

"An unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice." — 42 USC § 2000e–2(m) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

---

In the wake of the George Floyd protests, tech companies promised to hire more minorities. One company that claims to help them do it is Gem, and although you might not have heard of it, you’ve probably heard of some of its 1,200-plus clients: Reddit, Dropbox, Robinhood, Discord, Zillow, Stripe, Affirm, and Grammarly, just to name a few. Although Gem’s software is primarily used for things like non-race- and gender-based recruiting, payroll, and benefits management, John, (not his real name) — who worked for Gem as a sales development representative through a B2B outsourcing firm from March to July of 2021, told us that the prospective corporate clients he talked to were most interested in Gem’s “diversity enhancing” capabilities. Essentially, they had race- and gender-based hiring quotas and wanted to use Gem’s software to meet them. He said one prospective client, an executive at the Bay Area-based AI and robotics research arm of one of the world’s leading car manufacturers, told him explicitly: “I need more black candidates this month.”

According to its website, Gem’s software allows recruiters to track “gender and race/ethnicity throughout the entire hiring funnel.” Essentially, it appears to include a comprehensive race and gender tracking system designed to help companies fill race- and gender-based quotas with precision. For example, in a 2021 diversity webinar posted on YouTube, a Gem employee seemed to explain how the software could show how many candidates a company would need to reach out to if it had three engineering positions open, but didn’t want to hire men for them (in her words: “wanted to give women a chance”). In the same video, she demonstrated how to break down each stage in the hiring funnel by race, and explained (but did not show, probably for privacy reasons) how companies could further track how their recruiters’ own efforts break down along the lines of the company’s race- and gender-based hiring quotas, so that the company may “hold them accountable.”

[ Screen capture from Gem’s diversity webinar ]

All this requires a lot of data. According to a recent LinkedIn post by Gem founder Steve Bartel, this data can come from three sources:

Self-ID: the demographic data collection on job applications

Manual override: the recruiter reports your race and gender based on visual cues such as your LinkedIn profile picture

Predicted: Gem’s proprietary AI determines a candidate's race and gender based on machine learning (Bartel notes this is only for aggregate/anonymized use, meaning that the UI doesn’t allow recruiters to see which race was assigned to individual candidates)

John told me that, of Gem’s features, its race- and gender-identifying AI was the biggest selling point. “A key part of the pitch was to tell clients that Gem uses AI and machine learning to determine race and gender.” (This is especially ironic, given the panic about “racist AI” that has consumed every discussion about artificial intelligence for years.)

“One thing that cracked me up was that recruiting/DEI buyers at companies would ask, ‘Is this legal?’” John told me. “Not because they were offended by how obviously racist the software was — they loved what they saw. The concern was pushback from their legal team.” He said this question was asked so frequently that Gem’s Chief Legal Counsel had a prewritten response to the question that would be passed along to clients who asked.

[ Source: Gem’s website, February 1, 2024 ]

The "Diversity Recruiting" section of Gem’s website offers a slate of what it calls “Case Studies” — essentially customer testimonials — where companies explain how they used Gem to hire based on race and gender.

In a case study for payroll firm Gusto, Gem seems to indicate the company used its “Candidate Rediscovery” tool to hire based on candidates’ race and gender. In Gem’s language, Gusto used the tool to “unearth talent who is vetted — and diverse — ultimately reducing time-to-hire.” In other words, companies could use Gem’s software to find people with specific racial and gender-based characteristics that meet the position’s requirements and hire them quickly, while weeding out similarly qualified candidates who are, presumably, white or male or both.

In a case study about the telecommunications company Twilio, Gem seems to describe how one of its senior recruiters was able to avoid hiring men with their tool:

Gem’s metrics have also helped [the recruiter] zero in on stages in the interview process where the team is falling short on equitable gender hiring. “For one division, we intuited that we were hiring more women than the average team—and we were! We were prepared to roll off our passive sourcing efforts for that division, but I don’t like to make a move without looking at all the data first. That’s where Gem came through.” [The recruiter] dug through the data in more detail and discovered that the proportion of male candidates was actually increasing quarter over quarter—so much so that, by Q3, they would have made significantly more male than female hires. “If we hadn’t had access to that data, we wouldn’t have been able to identify that trend and strategize on how to allocate our resources properly.”

This is easily interpretable as: We thought everything was fine until Gem showed us that by Q3 we might hire a disproportionate number of men in a division that a disproportionate number of men applied to work in. It's worth noting that when announcing massive job cuts in 2022, Twilio’s CEO bragged that the layoffs had been carried out through an “Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens.”

In another testimonial from Chili Piper, an inbound conversion platform for B2B revenue teams, the company’s Talent Ops Manager says she used Gem to discover that URG (under-represented group) candidates were dropping off after the company stopped including a video submission in the application (itself seeming to indicate that a significant proportion “URGs” were being advanced through the hiring pipeline because of their race or gender). She successfully lobbied to bring the video submission back and modified the assignment. “Now it’s like, sell us a new smartphone: something that really levels the playing field and lets us see candidates’ creativity, communication, and approach in action. It’s not necessarily entrenched in experience in tech and SaaS sales.” Since then, the company has “seen a decisive shift in the demographics of candidates who make it to the interview stage of our process. We have seen a 54% increase in URG candidates and a 31% increase in female-identified candidates making it to the first round of interviews. Offers extended to, and offers accepted by URGs have increased.”

In other words, Chili Piper's testimonial seems to indicate that Gem showed the company that when it stopped asking applicants to submit a video that allowed them to see their race and gender, they stopped hiring more minorities. So they brought video back, and seemed to effectively lower their standards by changing the assignment to one in which industry experience was deprioritized.

Gem’s own hiring practices also raise red flags. An internal jobs board from June 2021 provided to Pirate Wires shows that under a field titled “Diversity Search,” positions are either listed as “Open,” “Women,” “URM,” or “Women & URM,” suggesting that certain positions were closed off to straight white males, or perhaps that women and minorities were being sought after in those positions. We sent the screenshot of the internal job board — with company name and other identifying information redacted — to a tech industry employment lawyer, who said:

Without knowing more about the company or getting clarification on what some of the designations mean on the chart, it looks a bit problematic. The law allows companies to set “targets” and “goals” as they relate to the hiring, retention, and promotion of women, veterans, and underrepresented minorities (those targets/goals must be temporary). But the law does not currently allow private companies to set aside or otherwise designate specific positions for such group members. There are some grey areas for certain types of federal contractors, but it’s the exception to the rule.

As a non-lawyer, I’ll not comment on the legality of Gem’s hiring practices. However, I will say the company seems to use unorthodox recruiting methods. In Gem’s diversity webinar I referred to earlier, one of the hosts said, “Here at Gem, each time we open a new req [position], we actually focus solely on sourcing URGs, and in conjunction [with that] we don’t post the job on the career site until other levers need to be pulled…”

The host then explained how she found candidates of specific races and genders at Gem, telling the audience: “Sourcing for URGs may require you to shift some fundamental ideas you have about what a quote-unquote good candidate looks like.” Next, she described how she would go through LinkedIn, searching for candidates with stereotypically minority names, who use neo-pronouns, or who went to minority-majority schools, among other tactics.

[ Slide from Gem’s diversity webinar]

When asked for comment, a representative from GEM told us “Our product provides interested customers with insights that help them build a diverse talent pipeline. We work closely with legal counsel to ensure our platform complies with all applicable laws and welcome potential customers looking to learn more to reach out to us."

Gem: a company that apparently doesn’t post some job announcements publicly without searching for specific races and genders on LinkedIn first. A company whose value proposition is to help companies hold their recruiters “accountable” for hiring too many of the wrong race and gender. A company that created an AI that predicts your race and gender. A company whose AI tracks race throughout the hiring pipeline so efficiently that, allegedly, even woke companies question its legality during sales calls. Gem is the company that vast swaths of the tech industry are using to hire.

So if you’re in the business, and you’re a Derrick O’Donnell or a John Chau, good luck out there. I think you’re gonna need it.

[ Via: https://archive.md/gxFMK ]

==

DEI is discrimination.

[ttpd-chair]

One of the problems with the whole “gay people aren’t radical enough because they focused on gay marriage instead of focusing on fighting discrimination in employment and healthcare” is that gay people and gay advocacy groups have actually put a lot of time, money, and resources towards fighting for legal protections against discrimination in all sectors including but not limited to employment and healthcare. Also, historically it has been really hard for gay people to live happy lives with their romantic partner(s) and advocating for that successfully enough that gay marriage is the law of the land is actually pretty radical.

[reasonsforhope]

do you have any good queer news? I'm a queer person and hearing all the shit thats happening across the world is making me bummed out

I do! All of this is from LGBTQ Nation's excellent good news tag

^Article date: July 6, 2023

"Only two months after its formation, the “No SB 180” initiative had succeeded at making the city of Lawrence, Kansas a sanctuary city for LGBTQ+ people. Last week, in a unanimous vote, Lawrence became the first city in the state to declare itself as such.

Ordinance 9999 bans the city and all of its employees from collecting or releasing information on a person’s “biological sex, either male or female, at birth” and from helping with any investigation, detention, arrest, or surveillance “conducted by a jurisdiction with the authority to enforce Senate Bill 180, as enacted.”"

^Article date: July 28, 2023

"A federal judge has told a group of anti-trans parents to mind their own business after the group filed a lawsuit challenging an Ohio school district’s bathroom policy.

The attempts to meddle do not “pass legal muster,” he wrote in his ruling, saying that the group has no reason to sue.

“Not every contentious debate concerning matters of public importance presents a cognizable federal lawsuit,” Judge Michael Newman wrote, denying their petition to stop the Bethel Local School District’s policy that allows a single transgender middle school student to use the restroom that aligns with her gender identity."

^Article date: August 8, 2023

"The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the independent federal agency responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance, has released its first-ever “LGBTQI+-inclusive” policy since its founding in 1961.

The four-point policy is meant to serve as a blueprint for USAID staff and partners around the world to champion LGBTQ+ and intersex development and the human rights of all queer people through the agency’s work, said Jay Gilliam, USAID’s senior LGBTQI+ coordinator, in a video explaining the policy...

In simpler terms, the U.S. will try to improve diplomatic relationships with other countries by investing in locally-led LGBTQ+-inclusive programs that are shown to positively impact communities in need."

^Article date: August 3, 2023

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled in favor of three transgender students who were forbidden by their schools from using bathrooms matching their gender identities. The circuit court upheld a lower court’s preliminary injunction that said the schools have to let trans students use facilities associated with their genders...

The case involves three trans boys in Martinsville, Indiana and Terre Haute, Indiana, who need access to the boys’ room at their middle and high schools...

The court took into account the fact that Title IX bans discrimination on the basis of sex in schools that receive federal money, which is most of them. Citing the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton Co. that found that job discrimination against LGBTQ+ people necessarily takes sex into account and is therefore prohibited under Title VII, the appeals court ruled that the trans boys are likely to succeed in their case and that preventing them from using the correct bathroom while the case works its way through the court system could cause irreparable harm.

^Article date: August 2, 2023

^Article date: June 21, 2023

"A federal judge has ruled on the side of trans rights after a conservative group tried to overturn an Ohio school district’s anti-bullying policy.

The national conservative group Parents Defending Education (PDE) tried to get a preliminary injunction passed on the Olentangy Local School District’s prohibition on misgendering trans students. The policy includes students, teachers, and parents and it applies to out-of-school hours and social media as well."

^Article date: August 2, 2023

There's literally a bunch more I wanted to include, by the way! Tumblr just stopped being able to load them. Going back to add a few more in the reblogs now.

I know it feels like everything is against us right now. But I promise you: that is not true. The bigots and bastards may usually be the ones moving faster (in large part because they suck and don't care about democracy or due process at all),

But in the end, we are going to win. I promise.

[genderkoolaid]

https://thenewinquiry.com/on-hating-men-and-becoming-one-anyway/

found this beautiful article written in 2019 which sums up so so much about transmisandry and the dilemma of trans men, where they’re grouped with the perpetrator class even though they’re equally vulnerable

OHHH kissing you this article is so fucking good. 100% gonna post some quotes from it. I love how this is written & its a really good explanation of how "trans-inclusive" radical feminism & radical feminist ideas fuck over transmascs in a unique & painful way. Like!!:

But trans men’s manhood is inseparable from our transness, and the relationship between trans men and cis womanhood can’t be accurately understood by separating trans status from gender in order to claim we’re oppressed by one but not the other. The day-to-day operations of gendered power in our lives make no such distinction, and while theories of intersectionality are often invoked to defend such claims, the idea that these “axes” can be neatly separated relies on the exact additive conception of oppressive power relations that intersectionality was invented to disprove. In the critique where she coined the term, Kimberlé Crenshaw argues that Black women are frequently excluded from antidiscrimination case law, feminist theory, and anti-racist politics precisely because their experiences cannot be reduced to the sum of racism and sexism. She references the case of DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, in which five Black women plaintiffs were denied consideration of their Title VII claims because the discrimination they experienced was particular to Black women rather than all Black people or women of all races. Because each form of discrimination was treated as a “discrete set of experiences” in this case rather than part of a multidimensional whole, “the boundaries of sex and race discrimination doctrine [were] defined respectively by white women’s and Black men’s experiences.” In reality, however, Black women relate to power differently from either group, and their experiences cannot be understood by combining the experiences of oppression each have. Similarly, trans men’s relationship to gender cannot be understood by adding the privilege of maleness to the oppression of transness; the interaction between these axes substantively transforms both such that it generates an experience qualitatively different from either alone.

He even discusses black trans men&mascs experience with gendered racism & how exorsexism play a part in this. Read this article.

(Although it is fun how he talks about Tumblr in the past tense, like its a ghosttown. My friend we are still doing "do trans men experience misogyny" discourse here lmao)

[runawaymarbles]

The 30 chapters are a daunting read. Project 2025 proposes, among a host of things, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, deploying the U.S. military whenever protests erupt, dismantling the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, removing protections against sexual and gender discrimination, and terminating diversity, equity, inclusion and affirmative action.

Additional mandates include: siphoning off billions of public school funding, funding private school choice vouchers, phasing out public education’s Title 1 program, gutting the nation’s free school meals program, eliminating the Head Start program, banning books and suppressing any curriculum that discusses the evils of slavery.

Project 2025 also calls for banning abortion (which makes women second-class citizens), restricting access to contraception, forcing would-be immigrants to be detained in concentration camps, eliminating Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, recruiting 54,000 loyal MAGA Republicans to replace existing federal civil servants, and ending America’s bedrock principle that separates church from state.

Anyway anyone telling you that Biden is the same as Trump is either so deep in the sauce they don't know how to find a toilet, or actively lying to you because this is the outcome they want.

Project 2025 isn't going to kickstart the glorious revolution. It's going to make people exhausted, and scared, and dead.

[contemplatingoutlander]

A Trump judge sends Southwest Airlines to right-wing reeducation camp

Ruth Marcus does an excellent job of pointing out how another Trump appointed judge (from Texas) is stomping on the Constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. The judge in this case doesn't seem to understand the difference between people being allowed to hold religious beliefs and religious people harassing others who don't share their religious beliefs. The article is well worth reading. Here are some excerpts:

Another day, another extremist ruling by another extremist Trump judge, and this decision — from Texas, no surprise — is straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The judge held lawyers for Southwest Airlines in contempt of court for their actions in a religious-discrimination case brought by a former flight attendant and ordered them to undergo “religious liberty training.” And not just any instruction, but training conducted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative group that litigates against same-sex marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights. [emphasis added] The issue arises from a lawsuit filed by Charlene Carter, a flight attendant for more than 20 years and a longtime antagonist of the Southwest flight attendants union. In 2017, after union members attended the Women’s March under a “Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants” banner, Carter sent Facebook messages to the union president containing graphic antiabortion messages.

[See more under the cut.]

“This is what you supported during your Paid Leave with others at the Women’s MARCH in DC …. You truly are Despicable in so many ways,” Carter wrote in one message accompanying a video of an aborted fetus. After the union president complained, Southwest fired Carter, saying her conduct “crossed the boundaries of acceptable behavior,” was “inappropriate, harassing, and offensive,” and “did not adhere to Southwest policies and guidelines.” An arbitrator found that Southwest had just cause for the firing. Carter, represented by the National Right to Work Committee, sued, claiming Southwest and the union violated her rights under federal labor laws and Title VII. The federal job-bias law bars employers from discriminating on the basis of religion, and Carter claimed she was dismissed because of her sincerely held religious beliefs against abortion. [...] The scary part is what came next. [U.S. District Judge Brantley] Starr instructed the airline to “inform Southwest Flight Attendants that, under Title VII, [Southwest] may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs.” Instead, Southwest said in a message to staff that the court “ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate against our Employees for their religious practices and beliefs.” This sent Starr into orbit.... “In the universe we live in — the one where words mean something — Southwest’s notice didn’t come close to complying with the Court’s order,” Starr said. “To make matters worse,” he said, Southwest had circulated a memo about the decision to its employees repeating its view that Carter’s conduct was unacceptable and emphasizing the need for civility. “Southwest’s speech and actions toward employees demonstrate a chronic failure to understand the role of federal protections for religious freedom,” Starr decreed. He proceeded to order three Southwest lawyers to undergo eight hours of religious-liberty training — a move he described as “the least restrictive means of achieving compliance with the Court’s order.” Luckily, Starr observed, “there are esteemed nonprofit organizations that are dedicated to preserving free speech and religious freedom.” [...] Adjectives fail me here. This is not even close to normal.... the notion of subjecting lawyers to a reeducation campaign by the likes of the ADF is tantamount to creating a government-endorsed thought police. Imagine the uproar — and I’m not suggesting these groups are in any way comparable — if a liberal-leaning federal judge ordered instruction on women’s rights (those are constitutionally protected, too) by Planned Parenthood. [...] This is the alarming legacy that former president Donald Trump has left us — a skewed bench that he would augment if reelected. The Trump judges seem to be competing among themselves for who can engage in the greatest overreach. [...] Conservatives are quick to balk at anything resembling the order that Starr issued when they disagree with the underlying principle. [...] I need no excuses for calling this what it is: a reeducation program — outrageous, unconstitutional and an abuse of judicial authority. [emphasis added]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

On Tuesday, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas announced a set of policy changes inspired by President Donald Trump’s recent anti-trans executive orders, including the derecognition of nonbinary people, the removal of pronoun options from digital workplace tools, and the elimination of materials promoting what she called “gender ideology.” Most alarming, however, was Lucas’ stated top priority: “defend the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single-sex spaces at work,” a signal that she intends to push for a federally backed bathroom ban in private workplaces.

The press release clarifies that Lucas cannot unilaterally rescind prior EEOC guidance from the Biden administration that affirmed protections for transgender people under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These protections stem from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which determined that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is unlawful in the workplace. However, many conservative policymakers and activists have pushed to exclude gender identity from these protections, ignoring established legal precedent. Despite these legal constraints, the release states Lucas’ intent to push for the revocation of these protections and to establish transgender bathroom bans in workplaces. Lucas echoed these arguments in Tuesday’s announcement, stating, “It is neither harassment nor discrimination for a business to draw distinctions between the sexes in providing single-sex bathrooms or other similar facilities which implicate these significant privacy and safety interests. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County does not demand otherwise: the Court explicitly stated that it did ‘not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.’”

Lucas has been a staunch Trump ally since his first term, having been appointed to the EEOC in 2020. Throughout her tenure, she has consistently opposed measures she labels as “DEI,” particularly those supporting transgender women’s inclusion in women’s spaces. Initially, her focus was on what she framed as threats to “religious liberty,” advocating for individuals with “religious objections” to COVID-19 prevention measures during the height of the pandemic. However, by late 2022, she had shifted her attention toward anti-trans politics, aligning with conservative judges to oppose transgender people’s right to use restrooms that match their gender identity.

[...] These rollbacks on transgender rights mark only the beginning of the Trump administration’s broader assault on transgender individuals. Less than two weeks into his second term, Trump issued an executive order targeting gender-affirming care for minors, attempting to strip transgender youth of access to life-saving medical treatment. He also reinstated a ban on transgender service members, branding their “lifestyle” as incompatible with military service and claiming they lack “honor, truthfulness, and discipline.” The fight over transgender rights is far from over. Trump’s executive orders will face immediate legal challenges, and activists across the country are already mobilizing in response. 

The EEOC pushing for a ban on trans people using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity in private business is an utter insult to common sense.

[beardedmrbean]

September 12, 2024, Elk Grove, Ca.—California teacher Isaac Newman has won a judgment just three months after he alleged in a federal civil rights lawsuit that his teachers’ union discriminated against him on the basis of race. Newman, who is white, was unable to run for a union executive board position because the union required candidates to “self-identify” as a racial minority.

Following Newman’s lawsuit, the union quickly folded by ending the segregated board seat and committing to non-discriminatory practices in other union positions. A judge also entered an order requiring the union, the Elk Grove Education Association (EGEA), to pay Newman $12,000 and to pay his attorneys’ fees.

“I’m delighted that my lawsuit forced union officials to admit something every high school student knows: Racial segregation is wrong,” said Newman, who teaches history at Elk Grove Unified School District in suburban Sacramento. “I hope this victory returns union officials’ focus to representing all teachers, rather than dividing us based on race. I plan to donate every penny I receive from the union to a local scholarship fund for Elk Grove students.”

Newman’s lawsuit cited Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, both of which prohibit unions from racial discrimination.

“Based on union officials’ immediate capitulation to Isaac’s demands, it’s clear that they thought they didn’t have a legal leg to stand on to defend their segregated board seat,” said Nathan McGrath, president and general counsel for the Fairness Center. “Isaac’s win affirms that unions don’t get a pass on anti-discrimination law.”

The EGEA has created a new board seat open to all members to replace the one for which only non-whites were eligible.

“After this major victory, I will continue my fight to hold the union accountable to the letter and the spirit of the law by running for the union’s new board seat on a platform of true fairness and equal representation for all members, regardless of race,” responded Newman.

Background

In 2023, EGEA officials created a “BIPOC At-Large” seat on its executive board with the approval of its statewide affiliate union, the California Teachers Association. Newman, a decade-long union member, resolved to run for the board seat, but the union’s nomination form required him to check a box confirming that he identified as a member of one of several racial minority groups. Newman could not in good conscience check the box and was, therefore, unable to run for the board position.

[samueldays]

I don’t know if you’ve seen the news about the federal lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain charging them with hiring discrimination. Apparently refusing to hire people who fail a criminal background check is racist. Do you think there’s any chance of this rolling back some disparate impact hiring rules?

Almost no chance, good luck with that! Most of the reporting I can find seems to agree on this example of tone:

Federal officials said they do not allege Sheetz was motivated by racial animus, but take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers. The company was sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin.

“Federal law mandates that employment practices causing a disparate impact because of race or other protected classifications must be shown by the employer to be necessary to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the particular jobs at issue,” EEOC attorney Debra M. Lawrence said in a statement.

Finding evidence of wrongdoing is too hard work for the EEOC, so they find evidence of Bad Percentage and prosecute people for that instead!

Disparate impact is a totalitarian insanity of American law, for which the EEOC should be prosecuted by the successor regime.

And it's also well established in precedent of the current regime that disparate impact law gets to micromanage hiring, reverse the burden of proof, invent a Numbercrime, create contradictory obligations on employers to fill racial quotas and also not do that, and contribute to even more problems as side effects such as university diploma mills and inflaming racial taboos.

[shalom-iamcominghome]

Hi, me again with an ask response to an ask, this time re asking for Shabbat accommodations before converting. If anon lives in the US, these FAQs, these guidance materials, and this text of the law, all from EEOC, should help. I pulled this from the first link (bolding for emphasis is mine):

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion."

If anon is not from the US, I recommend researching all relevant laws before they approach their employer.

Best of luck, anon!

Exactly!! This is great information to have in general, and I hope this will prove helpful to everyone!

This is absolutely true; in my answer, I focused mostly on the idea that you don't have to tell them why you need the time off. I am selective about what my employers know about me, and I encourage everyone to have the discernment between professional and personal life and boundaries. You don't have to justify your life to your employer, and they (in the U.S.) are not entitled to religious discrimination regardless of your status. This is a great reminder, and I want to thank you for reminding me of what is in that title, and for taking the time to send this! It's most certainly appreciated 🩵

[nationallawreview]

Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action and Impact on Companies’ DEI Programs

In June 2023, the US Supreme Court voted 6-3 in a decision that significantly changed the way colleges and universities used affirmative action in their admissions. The targets of the lawsuit were Harvard University and University of North Carolina for alleged racial discrimination in admissions. The Ruling  The Court ruled that race conscious college admission policies aimed at maintaining…

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The Christian Employers Alliance (CEA) won an important victory when a North Dakota federal court ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services cannot force religious employers to pay for or perform “transgender” medical interventions.

The case stemmed from an EEOC decision to redefine and reinterpret “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “sexual orientation” and...

[trump-executive-orders]

Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service

Issued January 20, 2025.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 3301, 3302, and 7511 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Policy. American citizens deserve an excellent and efficient Federal workforce that attracts the highest caliber of civil servants committed to achieving the freedom, prosperity, and democratic rule that our Constitution promotes. But current Federal hiring practices are broken, insular, and outdated. They no longer focus on merit, practical skill, and dedication to our Constitution. Federal hiring should not be based on impermissible factors, such as one's commitment to illegal racial discrimination under the guise of "equity," or one's commitment to the invented concept of "gender identity" over sex. Inserting such factors into the hiring process subverts the will of the People, puts critical government functions at risk, and risks losing the best-qualified candidates.

By making our recruitment and hiring processes more efficient and focused on serving the Nation, we will ensure that the Federal workforce is prepared to help achieve American greatness, and attracts the talent necessary to serve our citizens effectively. By significantly improving hiring principles and practices, Americans will receive the Federal resources and services they deserve from the highest-skilled Federal workforce in the world.

Sec. 2. Federal Hiring Plan. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), shall develop and send to agency heads a Federal Hiring Plan that brings to the Federal workforce only highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests.

(b) This Federal Hiring Plan shall:

(i) prioritize recruitment of individuals committed to improving the efficiency of the Federal government, passionate about the ideals of our American republic, and committed to upholding the rule of law and the United States Constitution;

(ii) prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch;

(iii) implement, to the greatest extent possible, technical and alternative assessments as required by the Chance to Compete Act of 2024;

(iv) decrease government-wide time-to-hire to under 80 days;

(v) improve communication with candidates to provide greater clarity regarding application status, timelines, and feedback, including regular updates on the progress of applications and explanations of hiring decisions where appropriate;

(vi) integrate modern technology to support the recruitment and selection process, including the use of data analytics to identify trends, gaps, and opportunities in hiring, as well as leveraging digital platforms to improve candidate engagement; and

(vii) ensure Department and Agency leadership, or their designees, are active participants in implementing the new processes and throughout the full hiring process.

(c) This Federal Hiring Plan shall include specific agency plans to improve the allocation of Senior Executive Service positions in the Cabinet agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Management and Budget, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Personnel Management, and the General Services Administration, to best facilitate democratic leadership, as required by law, within each agency.

(d) The Federal Hiring Plan shall provide specific best practices for the human resources function in each agency, which each agency head shall implement, with advice and recommendations as appropriate from DOGE.

Sec. 3. Accountability and Reporting. (a) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall establish clear performance metrics to evaluate the success of these reforms, and request agency analysis on a regular basis.

(b) The Office of Personnel Management shall consult with Federal agencies, labor organizations, and other stakeholders to monitor progress and ensure that the reforms are meeting the needs of both candidates and agencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.