kek!

anybody even remotely surprised? pro corporate bigots is exactly what trump promised to nominate, yet somehow people still pretend that's not exactly what ACB is, lol...

I'd have to read the full case.

The fact that it was unanimous means there are probably other facts that are relavent to deciding this case.

If it was like the frozen trucker case, where he was one ridiculous dissent, I'd take it at face value.

i mean sure, there might be scenarios in which using the n-word does not constitute a "hostile work environment", but the point is that i don't think anyone is surprised in the slightest to learn about this, while right wingers pretend not to know what kind of judge she will be - even though trump repeatedly and proudly told america exactly what kind of judges he wants on his courts.

this whole process is a farce, and as much as i despise the dems establishment, packing the SC is literally the only way they could restore at least SOME degree of balance and fairness to the highest court in the country - and i'm sure the pearl clutching from the right will reach new records anyway. what a fucked up and broken system, lol.

ACB says its an egregious term, and that the plantiff required substantive and provable cause for the suit, not just a “he-said he-said”. also in the exact text quoted the employee is admittedly problematic even before the incident discussed. hard to argue against this

but of course heinrich wants the authority to police the supposed use of the n-word. as if it’s his ‘job’

It's true. It's possible that the supervisor was just singing a gangster rap song.

I think it really depends on the context in which the n-word was said.

Imagine a scenario where this dude and his supervisor had been at each others throat for quite some time, and then one day, they get into a heated exchange during which they throw cusses at each other. During the exchange, Smith says "screw you, fat cocksucker", to which Colbert replies "oh shut up, nigga". Would this be enough to prove a hostile or abusive workplace environment?

What ACB writes in her decision about "Smith can't simply win by proving that the word was uttered, he must also demonstrate that the use of this word created a hostile or abusive environment" is spot on.
Now, I'm not familiar with the case and it could well be that the plaintiff was indeed discriminated against, and then wronged by the judge panel ACB was sitting on. But without knowing we details, we shouldnt just assume that either of these scenarios is how it went down.

This came up during the Senate hearing, and from what I recall, Judge Barrett said that the plaintiff didn't introduce the supervisor using the N-word as his evidence for the hostile work environment claim. His claim was based on the supervisor getting angry with him and cussing at him when they were driving together. It was something like they took a wrong exit, or something like that. My memory is a little hazy on those details.

What I do remember her saying though was that the supervisor used the N-word after the plaintiff's termination process was already initiated.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Oct 16 2020 09:20pm

why is it that i see the light
it's so blinding
but then i can't see shit
please

the light is fucking blinding