this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
170 points (97.8% liked)

News

23378 readers
2139 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it easier for workers who are transferred from one job to another against their will to pursue job discrimination claims under federal civil rights law, even when they are not demoted or docked pay.

Workers only have to show that the transfer resulted in some, but not necessarily significant, harm to prove their claims, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.

The justices unanimously revived a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by a St. Louis police sergeant after she was forcibly transferred, but retained her rank and pay.

Sgt. Jaytonya Muldrow had worked for nine years in a plainclothes position in the department’s intelligence division before a new commander reassigned her to a uniformed position in which she supervised patrol officers. The new commander wanted a male officer in the intelligence job and sometimes called Muldrow “Mrs.” instead of “sergeant,” Kagan wrote.

Muldrow 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. Lower courts had dismissed Muldrow’s claim, concluding that she had not suffered a significant job disadvantage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 35 points 7 months ago (5 children)

IANAL, could this potentially be used for forced relocations caused by return to office mandates for previously fully remote jobs?

[–] iamdisillusioned 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is a discrimination case, which currently only applies to protected classes, such as race, religion, age, etc. But age discrimination can begin at 40 years old, so it's a class that everyone eventually gets to be a part of...if they are lucky enough to live that long.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago

It's also a clear discrimination case, in that the commander made it pretty clear that she was being moved because of her sex. Mandating that all employees return to the office, regardless of protected class, probably wouldn't pass the sniff test.

[–] dogslayeggs 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Only if A) the job was remote when accepted (meaning you weren't in the office before COVID), and B) you have some disability preventing you from getting to or working in an office.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

I think that would still help a surprising number of people

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It certainly doesn't hurt, but she won based on it being an illegal form of discrimination causing some form of harm, a non-discriminatory policy might be viewed differently.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean, it does unnecessarily impact specific subsets of people (people who are unable to drive due to disabilities, people that can't relocate to certain areas due to severe allergies, medical conditions that have very limited specialists available to treat, etc)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

ADA covers a bit of that already, and can already be effectively welded against return to office policies, but they are individual specific exceptions to a global policy. This was targeted illegal discrimination.

[–] breetai 5 points 7 months ago

Only if that job was remote because of the disability.

Otherwise, no.

[–] Addv4 5 points 7 months ago

*"No, not like that!" *