SCOTUS: Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh Fiercely Defended Workers’ Rights. There’s an Ulterior Motive.

[searcher]

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh Fiercely Defended Workers’ Rights. There’s an Ulterior Motive​

This is part of Opening Arguments, Slate’s coverage of the start of the latest Supreme Court term. We’re working to change the way the media covers the Supreme Court. Support our work when you join Slate Plus.

When your boss transfers you to a less favorable shift or position because of your race, sex, or religion, are you a victim of illegal discrimination? The answer should obviously be yes: Being treated differently at work on the basis of a protected trait is prohibited by federal law. Yet most lower courts have resisted this conclusion for decades, forcing victims to prove some special, heightened harm in order to sue. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court indicated its intent to shut down this anti-worker regime, with a coalition of liberal and conservative justices uniting behind the plain language of the law. It was a bit surreal to hear Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh side with the liberal justices in favor of workers’ rights. And the conservatives may well have an ulterior motive for a vigorous enforcement of the law in question. But these days, you take what you can get from the Supreme Court. And what we seem likely to get is a course correction that will improve the lives of working people.

The facts of Wednesday’s case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, show how managers can use transfers to entrench inequality in a workplace. Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow worked in the St. Louis Police Department’s Intelligence Division, focusing on public corruption, human trafficking, gun crimes, and gang violence. She liked her job, and was by all accounts quite good at it during her 10 years in the role. Her supervisor, however, deemed the position too “dangerous” for Muldrow—whom he consistently called “Mrs. Muldrow” rather than “Sergeant,” an honorific he used for male officers. The supervisor transferred Muldrow (along with two other female officers in her division) to a less “dangerous” job, and replaced her with a man. She was suddenly put on routine patrol, performing entry-level police work.

Read the rest:

MSN

 

[pmbug]

That is some shitty writing from Slate. The headline states (as fact) that Gorusch and Kavanaugh have ulterior motives behind their voting. The article equivocates by saying:

... And the conservatives may well have an ulterior motive ...

But nowhere does the article follow up and support the assertion (or headline declaration). Did the other justices also have ulterior motives? That's some garbage editorializing on Slate's part.

 

[searcher]

Washington Examiner opinion piece

Supreme Court workplace discrimination case could open floodgates for anti-DEI lawsuits​

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could open up the definition of what qualifies as workplace discrimination in ways that could threaten corporate DEI policies.

The case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, involves a black female police sergeant who claims her employer discriminated against her by transferring her out of the department's intelligence division and filling her role with a man. The transfer did not involve a reduction in her pay or rank, however, and a finding by the high court that she nonetheless faced discrimination would raise questions about whether workplace DEI programs that treat employees differently, not necessarily worse, on the basis of their sex or race are forms of discrimination.

More:

MSN