Jump to content

Texas judge orders SWA lawyers to take religious liberty training from far-right hate group

Pancho

By Pancho
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Gap03

Gap03 3287

Posted
Posted

I honestly can't tell if this is a joke:

gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.467.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Quote

It’s hard to see how Southwest could have violated the notice requirement more. Take these modified historical and movie anecdotes. After God told Adam, “[Y]ou must not eat from the tree [in the middle of the garden],”3 imagine Adam telling God, “I do not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden”—while an apple core rests at his feet. Or where Gandalf bellows, “You shall not pass,”4 the Balrog muses, “I do not pass,” while strolling past Gandalf on the Bridge of Khazad-dûm. 

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47zdxigxal3ktojtdpwi

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18197

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
9 minutes ago, slorch said:

I swear motherfuckers are so morally and even socially bankrupt they have zero concept of 'serving the public' or justice.

If you want to fix it, vote Democratic and stop running bothsideser interference on the internet. 

  • Hook 'Em 45
  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

If you want to fix it, vote Democratic and stop running bothsideser interference on the internet. 

They are both corrupt.  We as a society are brutally corrupt.

One side is NOT going to fix jack shit.

we are averse to accountability.  We live with the results.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85127

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

You’re nothing if not entirely predictable. 

Well don't you know anything?

If he votes for the Dems, they'll just appointment liberal judges who will force people to go to woke camp.  Duh. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29266

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

What is the story here

Some fucking kook was constantly harassing her coworkers with anti-abortion propaganda so Southwest fired her and she sued and won over $5 million because they violated her religious liberty.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 9838

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Some fucking kook was constantly harassing her coworkers with anti-abortion propaganda so Southwest fired her and she sued and won over $5 million because they violated her religious liberty.

This was a Dallas jury?? I'm sure this judge had a lot of integrity and did not interfere with the jury selection process whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8692

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Some fucking kook was constantly harassing her coworkers with anti-abortion propaganda so Southwest fired her and she sued and won over $5 million because they violated her religious liberty.

That and also the judge ordered this sanction completely on his own. Plaintiff didn’t request it and ADF isn’t involved in the case in any way. It’s unclear if the judge even contacted ADF - which doesn’t in fact do training on religious liberty.
 

They are far right activists who fund and file cases like the lady who didn’t want to create gay wedding websites even though she was never asked to do one in the first place - or the ones who are trying to get courts to ban abortion drugs nationwide. 

To suggest they are a neutral party or even a vendor who provides employment law training regarding religious accommodations is absurd. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lidig8r

Lidig8r 1856

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

That and also the judge ordered this sanction completely on his own. Plaintiff didn’t request it and ADF isn’t involved in the case in any way. It’s unclear if the judge even contacted ADF - which doesn’t in fact do training on religious liberty.
 

They are far right activists who fund and file cases like the lady who didn’t want to create gay wedding websites even though she was never asked to do one in the first place - or the ones who are trying to get courts to ban abortion drugs nationwide. 

To suggest they are a neutral party or even a vendor who provides employment law training regarding religious accommodations is absurd. 

I always feel like I need to take a shower after even looking in the Cloak Room especially since both major political parties long ago diverged from my beliefs. Nonetheless ...

First, court orders, especially on sanctions are always crafted by the Court.

Second, on page 13 - 14, the following language appears: "Carter seeks four  sanctions—attorney fees, a flat fine, a revised notice, and religious-liberty training. The Court considers each in turn." So, without looking at the Motion for Sanctions, it appears as if the plaintiff did seek that type of sanction.

Third, I don't know much about ADF and don't particularly care. But, the following language indicates why this judge chose ADF: "For instance, ADF recently agreed to “conduct a First Amendment training session” for three professors who allegedly discriminated against a student for posting “materials to her social media accounts” and sending “messages to fellow students” containing, among other things, religious views.78 And, in that case, the defendants allegedly cited their school policies as a reason to curtail religious speech.79 Because this case also involves an entity’s citation to its policies in an apparent attempt to end-run legal protections against religious discrimination based on online activities, ADF is particularly well-suited to train Southwest’s employees who are most responsible for the communications at issue here."

Magistrate Judge Starr also cited ADF as follows: "See, e.g., Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1722 (2018) (recognizing that ADF was counsel on a successful Supreme Court appeal)."

The 29 page Order entered by the Court outlines some egregious conduct by Southwest Airlines and its inside counsel.

Now, I know this is the "Cloak Room" where all reason, logic, professionalism and mutual respect are not welcome.

As such, proceed with the usual ... "YOU'RE STUPID! NO, YOU'RE STUPID! NUH UH! HUH UH! WELL FUCK YOU! WELL FUCK YOU TOO!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Foosters

Foosters 17734

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
Just now, Lidig8r said:

I always feel like I need to take a shower after even looking in the Cloak Room especially since both major political parties long ago diverged from my beliefs.

Ahh, a socially liberal fiscal conservative. 

I also love how you spent all those words lecturing us when you admit that "I don't know much about the ADF, and don't particularly care." 

But who they are is precisely the reason for the ire. 

  • Hook 'Em 14
  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2445

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Lidig8r said:

I always feel like I need to take a shower after even looking in the Cloak Room especially since both major political parties long ago diverged from my beliefs. Nonetheless ...

First, court orders, especially on sanctions are always crafted by the Court.

Second, on page 13 - 14, the following language appears: "Carter seeks four  sanctions—attorney fees, a flat fine, a revised notice, and religious-liberty training. The Court considers each in turn." So, without looking at the Motion for Sanctions, it appears as if the plaintiff did seek that type of sanction.

Third, I don't know much about ADF and don't particularly care. But, the following language indicates why this judge chose ADF: "For instance, ADF recently agreed to “conduct a First Amendment training session” for three professors who allegedly discriminated against a student for posting “materials to her social media accounts” and sending “messages to fellow students” containing, among other things, religious views.78 And, in that case, the defendants allegedly cited their school policies as a reason to curtail religious speech.79 Because this case also involves an entity’s citation to its policies in an apparent attempt to end-run legal protections against religious discrimination based on online activities, ADF is particularly well-suited to train Southwest’s employees who are most responsible for the communications at issue here."

Magistrate Judge Starr also cited ADF as follows: "See, e.g., Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1722 (2018) (recognizing that ADF was counsel on a successful Supreme Court appeal)."

The 29 page Order entered by the Court outlines some egregious conduct by Southwest Airlines and its inside counsel.

Now, I know this is the "Cloak Room" where all reason, logic, professionalism and mutual respect are not welcome.

As such, proceed with the usual ... "YOU'RE STUPID! NO, YOU'RE STUPID! NUH UH! HUH UH! WELL FUCK YOU! WELL FUCK YOU TOO!

That you don't know or don't care about the ADF negates your whole post.  They are fucking looney tunes. They believe in religious freedom only to extent it's protecting white protestant christian conservatives.  It's a fucking hate group disguised as the conservative ACLU.

Edited by A-Tex Devil
  • Hook 'Em 15
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2445

Posted
Posted
Just now, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

If they fail to comply with this order, do they have to attend seminary? Or madrasa, perhaps?

Probably.  It only takes a little digging to determine that Starr is full of shit and ADF doesn't have any type of training course like this - and nothing to show they are particularly well suited to do this training as Starr claims (I read it, too).  The ADF's top attorney is Josh Hawley's wife.  I imagine they are trying to insert themselves into as many of these cases as possible to build up a little cottage industry here.   I mean, own the libs by getting crackpot judges to force people to take religious indoctrination courses and get paid for it, too.  I imagine the ADF rep will stay at the Ritz and end up with a Fearing's prostitute that he puts on Southwest's bill.  I mean, the judge didn't put "reasonable" in front of travel expenses, after all.  

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lidig8r

Lidig8r 1856

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Ahh, a socially liberal fiscal conservative. 

I also love how you spent all those words lecturing us when you admit that "I don't know much about the ADF, and don't particularly care." 

But who they are is precisely the reason for the ire. 

So, if the judge had appointed some other entity, then all would be both hunky and dory?

And then we could focus on the reprehensible conduct perpetrated by Southwest Airline's in house mouthpieces?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Foosters

Foosters 17734

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
9 minutes ago, Lidig8r said:

So, if the judge had appointed some other entity, then all would be both hunky and dory?

If it wasn't this group?

Quote

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society. ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion. Since the election of President Trump, ADF has become one of the most influential groups informing the administration’s attack on LGBTQ rights.

Yes, I'm comfortable saying that the particular entity in this case is largely responsible for the outrage you're seeing.

I guess the question I have is, what made you run in here so eager to die on this hill? You hate the CR and would never stoop so low as to post here (we know because you told us 3 times in your post.) Do you run a religious liberty training institute or something?

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Haha 9
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31304

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Lidig8r said:

So, if the judge had appointed some other entity, then all would be both hunky and dory?

And then we could focus on the reprehensible conduct perpetrated by Southwest Airline's in house mouthpieces?

Well, for starts, the sanctionable conduct doesn't really involve religious liberty at all.  

It was a bad reading of a court order.  Very self-serving.

So, religious liberty training is not really curative of anything.

They do actually offer CLE.  https://adflegal.org/training/legal-academy

But, they are a group of kooks and freaks and christofascists.

Some type of CLE might be appropriate, but not "religious liberty training."

I do find it very difficult to believe, given the Fifth Circuit's chary spin on employment discrimination in other contexts, that he did not err in a) giving this to a jury and b) instructing said jury and c) not granting JMOL after the verdict.

I suspect the Fifth Circuit will have to reverse this, or risk giving Negroes and icky fags and dykes the ability to win discrimination suits.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 15
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lidig8r

Lidig8r 1856

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

If it wasn't this group?

Yes, I'm comfortable saying that the particular entity in this case is largely responsible for the outrage you're seeing.

I guess the question I have is, what made you run in here so eager to die on this hill? You hate the CR and would never stoop so low as to post here (we know because you told us 3 times in your post.) Do you run a religious liberty training institute or something?

 

Furk, I can't even spell relijus traneing institute or something.

I'm probably more a Kabbalist than anything else.

It is just so fascinating to see what gets my fellow Horns (Class of '81 for me) riled up.

I don't hate the cloak room at all. It is great entertainment as long as you do not take anything seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2445

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Lidig8r said:

So, if the judge had appointed some other entity, then all would be both hunky and dory?

And then we could focus on the reprehensible conduct perpetrated by Southwest Airline's in house mouthpieces?

Well, yeah.   The ADF is uniquely not suited for this.  

And ultimately what did they do that was reprehensible?  They got slapped down for noncompliance of a court order?  Holy. Shit.  String ‘em up! 
 

And look, I am all for religious freedom but plaintiff was fucking harassing the union rep.  I’d fire a pro-choice lib for communicating in the workplace this way.   Not so sure SWA is on the wrong side of this one.  I don’t really agree that the first amendment trumps a private corporations right to terminate someone for lack of civility.  
 

Spoiler

On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff sent five private Facebook messages to Stone's "Audrey Stone Twu" account. Id. ¶ 46. First, at 11:22 a.m., she sent a message containing a video of an aborted fetus. Id. Plaintiff wrote,

 

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...by the way the RECALL is going to Happen and you are limited in the days you will be living off of all the [Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants]..cant wait to see you back on line. [sic]

 

Id. About an hour later, at 12:33 p.m., she sent another video of an aborted fetus and a message stating, "TWU-AFL-CIO and 556 are supporting this Murder ... [sic]." Id. At 1:00 p.m., Plaintiff then sent a third Facebook message containing a photo of women wearing hats depicting female genitalia. Id. Plaintiff's message stated,

 

Did you all dress up like this ...Wonder how this will be coded in the LM2 Financials...cause I know we paid for this along with your Despicable Party you hosted for signing the Contract....The RECALL [of the Local 556 Executive Board] is going to Happen we are even getting more signatures due to other [flight attendants] finding out what you guys do with our MONEY!!! Can't wait for you to have to be just a regular flight attendant again and not stealing from our DUES for things like this! [sic].

 

Id. Later that day, Plaintiff sent a fourth message with a link to an article discussing how one of the leaders of the Women's March was a convicted terrorist. Plaintiff wrote,

 

Did you know this....Hmmmm seems a little counter productive don't you think....you are nothing but a SHEEP in Wolves Clothing or you are just so uneducated that you have not clue who or what you were marching for! Either way you should not be using our DUES to have Marched in this despicable show of TRASH! [sic]

 

Id. Finally, Plaintiff sent a fifth message with an article written by the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., "explain[ing] that Planned Parenthood hid its pro-abortion agenda from her uncle and used his status as a civil rights leader to bolster its credibility." Id.

Three days later, on February 17, 2017, Plaintiff received an email from Stone on behalf of Local 556 urging her to contact her legislators to stop a National Right to Work bill in Congress. Id. ¶ 48. Plaintiff responded by email, stating:

 

First off I do not want your Propaganda coming to my inbox...that being said I Support the RIGHT TO WORK Organization 100% ABOVE what I have to pay you all in DUES! YOU and TWU-AFL-CIO do not Speak For Me or over half of our work group...We have a RECALL right now that we want adhered to with over the 50+ 1% and growing. WE WANT YOU all GONE!!!!!

....

P.S. Just sent The RIGHT TO WORK more money to fight this.... YOU all DISGUST ME!!!!! OH and by the WAY I and so many other of our FAs VOTED FOR TRUMP....so shove that in your Propaganda MACHINE! [sic]

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27068

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, A-Tex Devil said:

Well, yeah.   The ADF is uniquely not suited for this.  

And ultimately what did they do that was reprehensible?  They got slapped down for noncompliance of a court order?  Holy. Shit.  String ‘em up! 
 

And look, I am all for religious freedom but plaintiff was fucking harassing the union rep.  I’d fire a pro-choice lib for communicating in the workplace this way.   Not so sure SWA is on the wrong side of this one.  I don’t really agree that the first amendment trumps a private corporations right to terminate someone for lack of civility.  
 

  Hide contents

On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff sent five private Facebook messages to Stone's "Audrey Stone Twu" account. Id. ¶ 46. First, at 11:22 a.m., she sent a message containing a video of an aborted fetus. Id. Plaintiff wrote,

 

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...by the way the RECALL is going to Happen and you are limited in the days you will be living off of all the [Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants]..cant wait to see you back on line. [sic]

 

Id. About an hour later, at 12:33 p.m., she sent another video of an aborted fetus and a message stating, "TWU-AFL-CIO and 556 are supporting this Murder ... [sic]." Id. At 1:00 p.m., Plaintiff then sent a third Facebook message containing a photo of women wearing hats depicting female genitalia. Id. Plaintiff's message stated,

 

Did you all dress up like this ...Wonder how this will be coded in the LM2 Financials...cause I know we paid for this along with your Despicable Party you hosted for signing the Contract....The RECALL [of the Local 556 Executive Board] is going to Happen we are even getting more signatures due to other [flight attendants] finding out what you guys do with our MONEY!!! Can't wait for you to have to be just a regular flight attendant again and not stealing from our DUES for things like this! [sic].

 

Id. Later that day, Plaintiff sent a fourth message with a link to an article discussing how one of the leaders of the Women's March was a convicted terrorist. Plaintiff wrote,

 

Did you know this....Hmmmm seems a little counter productive don't you think....you are nothing but a SHEEP in Wolves Clothing or you are just so uneducated that you have not clue who or what you were marching for! Either way you should not be using our DUES to have Marched in this despicable show of TRASH! [sic]

 

Id. Finally, Plaintiff sent a fifth message with an article written by the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., "explain[ing] that Planned Parenthood hid its pro-abortion agenda from her uncle and used his status as a civil rights leader to bolster its credibility." Id.

Three days later, on February 17, 2017, Plaintiff received an email from Stone on behalf of Local 556 urging her to contact her legislators to stop a National Right to Work bill in Congress. Id. ¶ 48. Plaintiff responded by email, stating:

 

First off I do not want your Propaganda coming to my inbox...that being said I Support the RIGHT TO WORK Organization 100% ABOVE what I have to pay you all in DUES! YOU and TWU-AFL-CIO do not Speak For Me or over half of our work group...We have a RECALL right now that we want adhered to with over the 50+ 1% and growing. WE WANT YOU all GONE!!!!!

....

P.S. Just sent The RIGHT TO WORK more money to fight this.... YOU all DISGUST ME!!!!! OH and by the WAY I and so many other of our FAs VOTED FOR TRUMP....so shove that in your Propaganda MACHINE! [sic]

 

 

 

So, this chick got sued fired for the above harassment and then sued SWA for wrongful termination and was awarded $5M in damages?!?!? Wow.

Edited by C-Man
Fingers faster than brain, meant "fired" instead of the first "sued"
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45500

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, slorch said:

They are both corrupt.  We as a society are brutally corrupt.

One side is NOT going to fix jack shit.

we are averse to accountability.  We live with the results.

How.  How can you possibly say this with a straight face?  Please.  How?  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15493

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
45 minutes ago, Lidig8r said:

I always feel like I need to take a shower after even looking in the Cloak Room especially since both major political parties long ago diverged from my beliefs. Nonetheless ...

First, court orders, especially on sanctions are always crafted by the Court.

Second, on page 13 - 14, the following language appears: "Carter seeks four  sanctions—attorney fees, a flat fine, a revised notice, and religious-liberty training. The Court considers each in turn." So, without looking at the Motion for Sanctions, it appears as if the plaintiff did seek that type of sanction.

Third, I don't know much about ADF and don't particularly care. But, the following language indicates why this judge chose ADF: "For instance, ADF recently agreed to “conduct a First Amendment training session” for three professors who allegedly discriminated against a student for posting “materials to her social media accounts” and sending “messages to fellow students” containing, among other things, religious views.78 And, in that case, the defendants allegedly cited their school policies as a reason to curtail religious speech.79 Because this case also involves an entity’s citation to its policies in an apparent attempt to end-run legal protections against religious discrimination based on online activities, ADF is particularly well-suited to train Southwest’s employees who are most responsible for the communications at issue here."

Magistrate Judge Starr also cited ADF as follows: "See, e.g., Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1722 (2018) (recognizing that ADF was counsel on a successful Supreme Court appeal)."

The 29 page Order entered by the Court outlines some egregious conduct by Southwest Airlines and its inside counsel.

Now, I know this is the "Cloak Room" where all reason, logic, professionalism and mutual respect are not welcome.

As such, proceed with the usual ... "YOU'RE STUPID! NO, YOU'RE STUPID! NUH UH! HUH UH! WELL FUCK YOU! WELL FUCK YOU TOO!

You're wrong on multiple grounds.

1) Look at PACER--it shows that Plaintiff did not seek this as a sanction.  This was entirely made up by the Court.

2) Southwest's conduct wasn't "egregious."  Southwest's posting to its employees was in substantial compliance with the Court's Order.  The Court ordered Southwest to inform its flight attendants that it "will not discriminate" on the basis of religion.  Southwest posted that it "does not discriminate."  Weird biblical analogies aside, any reasonable reader would interpret that to mean that "Southwest does not discriminate, and isn't going to start doing so."

What really raised Judge Starr's ire was the subsequent posting to employees, which basically said "don't be a dick to your fellow employees."  That's good advice in any circumstance.  And by taking that to be a violation of the Court's Order, Judge Starr is kind of telling on himself and the Plaintiff.  Apparently, being a dick to one's fellow employees is protected religious exercise, according to Plaintiff and Judge Starr.

3) If you don't know much about ADL, you ought to educate yourself before posting.  ADL has been identified as a hate group by the SPLC.  And there's good reason for that.  It's positions are strongly anti-gay and anti- . . . well, anti-everything that isn't white Protestant Christian Nationalist.

The only thing cited for the proposition that ADL does training sessions is a press release put out by ADL, which is the authority on which the Court relies.  But nothing ADL posts on its website reflects that.  The only "training" they do is for lawyers to train them to advocate for ADL's Christian Nationalist positions.  As set forth on ADL's website,

Quote

The ADF Young Lawyers Academy is a unique program that combines outstanding legal training with an unwavering commitment to Christian principles. It is designed for recent law school graduates and lawyers in their first few years of practice, with an emphasis on those working in large and mid-size firms, as well as state and federal government offices. When you attend the Young Lawyers Academy, you will receive specific resources and opportunities to engage in ADF-related issues at the outset of your career, in addition to the excellent legal training and inspiring worship and devotions offered at all Academy sessions.

Whatever your area of practice, the Young Lawyers Academy will train you to effectively advocate for religious freedom, free speech, marriage and family, parental rights, and the sanctity of life. In most cases, the training includes 6-8 hours of high-quality CLE, focused on these crucial issues. Not only will the Young Lawyers Academy prepare you to integrate your faith with your work, it will equip you with the tools to approach your career strategically and connect you with an established network to provide support and guidance in a competitive and pressure-filled environment.

Your participation will also enable—and inspire—you to become part of an ever-expanding movement to impact our legal culture. The Young Lawyers Academy connects you with outstanding like-minded Christian attorneys from around the United States and provides an unrivaled opportunity to engage with renowned faculty and participate in a scholarly examination of issues such as natural law principles, constitutional jurisprudence, and worldview development. Daily worship and devotions will reinforce the importance of your core beliefs to your practice of law.

But it's also worth noting . . . 

4) The underlying case here is really interesting.  Plaintiff's co-worker attended the March for Women, to which Plaintiff took offense.  So Plaintiff undertook a year-long cyberbullying campaign of posting pictures of aborted fetuses to Plaintiff's Facetrons and calling her a baby-killer.  Southwest counseled her; she kept doing it.  So Southwest fired her.

Plaintiff sued on the basis that Southwest discriminated against her on the basis of her religious exercise in violation of Title VII.  So let's unpack that a bit.  Apparently, Plaintiff's religion requires her to bully her coworker.  And Southwest is legally obligated to accommodate her religious obligation to bully her coworkers.

Discussion of the legal merits of that aside, it is a really weird statement of the nature of Plaintiff's religion.  

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 27
  • Like 4
  • Rage+1 8
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13551

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
4 minutes ago, Lidig8r said:

I don't hate the cloak room at all. It is great entertainment as long as you do not take anything seriously.

You're a member of a political class accustomed to receiving most of they want and pissed when you don't get everything. Go fuck yourself.

  • Hook 'Em 12
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2445

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

So, this chick got sued for the above harassment and then sued SWA for wrongful termination and was awarded $5M in damages?!?!? Wow.

I don’t think so but could be wrong.  This was in a prior pleading in the case she brought that I pulled off the internet to illustrate why she got fired.  She got fired then sued, I think.  
 

Edited to add Ghost just explained better than me.   She created a hostile workplace and got fired.  Should have been a non issue but plaintiff is a Karen 

Edited by A-Tex Devil
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15493

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Lidig8r said:

So, if the judge had appointed some other entity, then all would be both hunky and dory?

And then we could focus on the reprehensible conduct perpetrated by Southwest Airline's in house mouthpieces?

What was the "reprehensible conduct?"

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4611

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, A-Tex Devil said:

Holy shit this dude was in my law school class.  Fucking hell.   I have never heard of him, though.  Man, Chip Roy and him in succession.  Geez.  

You know, we also went to school with Matt Kacsmaryk.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Js1

Js1 85127

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
18 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The underlying case here is really interesting.  Plaintiff's co-worker attended the March for Women, to which Plaintiff took offense.  So Plaintiff undertook a year-long cyberbullying campaign of posting pictures of aborted fetuses to Plaintiff's Facetrons and calling her a baby-killer. 

I hate religious folk. I hate them I hate them I hate them. All of them. Idc about the ones people say are good and right and virtuous, it’s been perverted into a disgusting hateful belief system. Speaking out doesn’t do shit anymore. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
wildcat09

wildcat09 29266

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Why is it that every time someone ventures in here (and I assume every other political forum online) and pretends to be smarter than everyone else and above their petty partisan politics, they're actually a reactionary dipshit with the intelligence of a not-particularly-bright high school freshman? Just once I'd like to see one that comes across as possibly interesting.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14258

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You're wrong on multiple grounds.

1) Look at PACER--it shows that Plaintiff did not seek this as a sanction.  This was entirely made up by the Court.

2) Southwest's conduct wasn't "egregious."  Southwest's posting to its employees was in substantial compliance with the Court's Order.  The Court ordered Southwest to inform its flight attendants that it "will not discriminate" on the basis of religion.  Southwest posted that it "does not discriminate."  Weird biblical analogies aside, any reasonable reader would interpret that to mean that "Southwest does not discriminate, and isn't going to start doing so."

What really raised Judge Starr's ire was the subsequent posting to employees, which basically said "don't be a dick to your fellow employees."  That's good advice in any circumstance.  And by taking that to be a violation of the Court's Order, Judge Starr is kind of telling on himself and the Plaintiff.  Apparently, being a dick to one's fellow employees is protected religious exercise, according to Plaintiff and Judge Starr.

3) If you don't know much about ADL, you ought to educate yourself before posting.  ADL has been identified as a hate group by the SPLC.  And there's good reason for that.  It's positions are strongly anti-gay and anti- . . . well, anti-everything that isn't white Protestant Christian Nationalist.

The only thing cited for the proposition that ADL does training sessions is a press release put out by ADL, which is the authority on which the Court relies.  But nothing ADL posts on its website reflects that.  The only "training" they do is for lawyers to train them to advocate for ADL's Christian Nationalist positions.  As set forth on ADL's website,

But it's also worth noting . . . 

4) The underlying case here is really interesting.  Plaintiff's co-worker attended the March for Women, to which Plaintiff took offense.  So Plaintiff undertook a year-long cyberbullying campaign of posting pictures of aborted fetuses to Plaintiff's Facetrons and calling her a baby-killer.  Southwest counseled her; she kept doing it.  So Southwest fired her.

Plaintiff sued on the basis that Southwest discriminated against her on the basis of her religious exercise in violation of Title VII.  So let's unpack that a bit.  Apparently, Plaintiff's religion requires her to bully her coworker.  And Southwest is legally obligated to accommodate her religious obligation to bully her coworkers.

Discussion of the legal merits of that aside, it is a really weird statement of the nature of Plaintiff's religion.  

 

 

The case never should have gone to a jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14258

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

What was the "reprehensible conduct?"

According to the judge, he viewed the changing of the wording from the court's injunction to what it said in its memo to employees as willful disobedience.  It was a poor call on their part; they should have just taken the language from the order verbatim.

 

The second memo regarding "don't be a dick" and telling its employees that SW disagreed with the decision and would be appealing in my view shouldn't have been sanctionable; court' s order could be viewed as unconstitutional violation of SW and its lawyers' free speech rights.  Of course the mandated religious re-education/indoctrination appears to me to be absolutely unconstitutional.  I guess we'll see how that moderate, careful thinking Fifth Circuit views it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...