I would bet she was passed over for the promotion because of her attitude, because you have to be an awful person to sue for this.
What's the difference between this case and every other employment discrimination case? Because she's straight and white?
The white part doesn't even matter. This is just an awful person blaming DEI for their failures.
And exactly how do you know that?
I don't feel like the article provided enough information to make a judgement on the validity of this. Just having seniority or a college degree doesn't automatically make you the better candidate. I am suspicious of this during pride though...
That's because we do not know the validity of this yet.
The woman in question believes she was passed over for a promotion that was ultimately given to a gay woman. She attempted to sue, which would have given us the information needed to decide if her case was valid in the first place. It never got that far; the courts said she couldn't sue at all because she's a member of a "majority" group (straight people). It's basically a legalese version of the belief that "You're straight/white therefore you can't be discriminated against at all."
The Supreme Court said that's not the case and struck down lower courts' rulings that members of a majority group need to meet a higher standard before even bringing the case in the first place. The SC ruling was 9-0, and did not discuss the merits of the case itself.
The woman who originally brought the suit can now sue her employer in court. Then we'll be able to get enough information about whether her particular case was valid in the first place.
Thank you for an informative and insightful comment.
Thank you for the clarification and useful explanation. She should be able to go to court to have her case heard. That does make sense and is a genuine step towards equality.
That's surprising.
This Supreme Court doing something to support equality and not stifle it instead? Oh, wait—it's probably just a happy accident that them dismissing the idea that discrimination requires privilege lines up with their quest to make sure the "right people" hurt.
Far be it from me to cast aspersions based on appearances, but she looks like the most Karen who ever Karened. The Uberkaren. That may have been at play.
She may be a perfectly nice individual, but getting to the Supreme Court is the ultimate "I want to speak to your manager!" move.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News