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

[Beau Vine 54007]

2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

binary hayseed

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

What was “it?” The first communication that used “does” rather than “will?” Because that seems at worst a little sneaky and kinda shit-eating. But probably more likely just a mis-assumption that it was close enough.

Hardly “reprehensible.”

Or was “it” the subsequent communication reminding employees of the Company’s employment policy against being an asshole and expressing disagreement with the Court’s judgment? Because that seems not just non-reprehensible, but constitutionally protected. Southwest Airlines Co., after all, is a person with constitutionally protected free-speech rights. And unless you think questioning the decisions of the Starr Chamber isn’t constitutionally protected speech, that ought not to be the “it” on which the sanctions are based.

But really, it was @Litig8r who deemed something “reprehensible.” And so I’d like to hear from him what he meant.

I would too.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

I have several questions and I’m not going to pull all the pleadings off pacer. 
 

1. How did the judge order Southwest to send the letter? Was it part of the judgment? How do you even do that? 
 

2. It says it was a jury trial, how the fuck did Southwest’s lawyers blow it that hard? Did the right wing anti union group funding the litigation hire good trial lawyers? My theory is since it’s federal court the judge conducted voir dire himself and stacked the box with slorches. 
 

3. It’s going to be hilarious when this gets affirmed 2-1 by Ho and Duncan and then SCOTUS denies cert because we live in hell. 

[Beau Vine 54007]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

When have we been positively surprised in our lifetimes?  Fucking never.

The debt ceiling agreement last fall was shocking.

[Dahobbs 17449]

1 hour ago, troph said:

I’d bet good money it was a hot take by a subject matter expert (litigator) who did not know how fucked up this ruling was. And to be fair it’s beyond the pale - barely believable - and thinking there is sanity here would be the likely starting point but for knowing who ADF is and then putting two and two together.  Again I think the only error (besides the general CR disclaimer) was making a fast conclusion without spending anytime looking at it based on what normally is true - judges don’t order sanctions unless asked for and conduct is egregious.  Fuck man, I’ve done that a few times - stupid conclusions not ask for or be subject to sanctions. It sucks, making stupid conclusion not sanctions I wouldn’t know.

Well, yes, but you need to add in that @Lidig8r made that fast conclusion while admitting he knew absolutely nothing about the christofascists or what happened. This wasn't just jump to conclusions. It was jump to conclusions while knowing your landing pad had at least a 50% chance of sinking in lava. 

But, back to the more important issue: how the fuck did this case result in a $5 million jury verdict? If there is a cheat code to get Trumpy jurors to award damages, I really want to know what it is. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31292]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, yes, but you need to add in that @Lidig8r made that fast conclusion while admitting he knew absolutely nothing about the christofascists or what happened. This wasn't just jump to conclusions. It was jump to conclusions while knowing your landing pad had at least a 50% chance of sinking in lava. 

But, back to the more important issue: how the fuck did this case result in a $5 million jury verdict? If there is a cheat code to get Trumpy jurors to award damages, I really want to know what it is. 

I'd sincerely like to see the verdict sheet and jury instructions.  Reports are 3.5M punitives against SWA and about 1M total against the union.  Sounds like unconstitutional punitives to me.

Funny thing.  In 30 years of practice, I don't believe I have ever seen a Dallas federal jury.  Conceivably, they could be old and white af.  Dallas County jurors by and large are not, pretty diverse and pretty balanced.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Hookah Horns 3082]

This is fucking insane. It's unbelievable how much damage Cheeto Benito managed to inflict on this country in 4 years. Not that the damage stopped at the end of his term. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

2 hours ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

ABNH is the best poster on this board.

Dude, no. I mean there's that other guy and Whatshisnam... Ok. 

[TwiceHorn 31292]

1 minute ago, Hookah Horns said:

This is fucking insane. It's unbelievable how much damage Cheeto Benito managed to inflict on this country in 4 years. Not that the damage stopped at the end of his term. 

Did you read this? https://www.texastribune.org/series/texas-law-conservative-revolution/

They didn't really even need Trump to do this.  Starr is a direct by-product of this.  

[sidis 9755]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, yes, but you need to add in that @Lidig8r made that fast conclusion while admitting he knew absolutely nothing about the christofascists or what happened. This wasn't just jump to conclusions. It was jump to conclusions while knowing your landing pad had at least a 50% chance of sinking in lava. 

But, back to the more important issue: how the fuck did this case result in a $5 million jury verdict? If there is a cheat code to get Trumpy jurors to award damages, I really want to know what it is. 

Given the judge’s behavior here, I do wonder what type of pretrial dispositive orders were at play, as well as what the jury instructions looked like. Either the facts regarding the woman’s behavior are being mischaracterized by the reports, the judge engaged in summary judgment/jury instructions fuckery, or they successfully sat a jury of absolute morons from southlake and frisco. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by sidis

[C-Man 27063]

4 hours ago, A-Tex Devil said:

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 

Sorry, fingers got going faster than brains. I meant to write that this chick harassed a co-worker with the posted emails/texts, got fired by SW and then sued for wrongful termination and was awarded $5M. That's unbelievable to me.

[TwiceHorn 31292]

16 minutes ago, sidis said:

Given the judge’s behavior here, I do wonder what type of pretrial dispositive orders were at play, as well as what the jury instructions looked like. Either the facts regarding the woman’s behavior are being mischaracterized by the reports, the judge engaged in summary judgment/jury instructions fuckery, or they successfully sat a jury of absolute morons from southlake and frisco. 

Frisco is in the eastern district.  And I don't think the Dallas Division would pull from Southlake, which is mostly in Tarrant.

I've seen some snippets of summary judgment rulings, and they don't look like your normal TItle VII summary judgments in the Fifth Circuit, that's for damn sure. https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/3:2017cv02278/292215/232  See page 13.

Here's really the thing, though.  This is the way Title VII cases should probably go.  Whether an employer's non-discriminatory reason for termination is a pretext should always be a jury question, or 90+% of the time.  But it rarely is in the Fifth Circuit.

Also, this case went from Boyle to Scholer to Starr.  Must have had some kind of stink on it.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Did you read this? https://www.texastribune.org/series/texas-law-conservative-revolution/

They didn't really even need Trump to do this.  Starr is a direct by-product of this.  

Yeah.

They didn't need Trump to this.

 

[C-Man 27063]

3 hours ago, Zepol87 said:

He’s a lawyer we get it.
 

I did meet him at happiest hour in Dallas one day from a shag meetup not a bad dude 

Shit, have we met in real life? I met him at Happiest Hour when @blacklab was in town for a deposition in the Eskimo Joe situation.

 

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well the court told them to say they "may not" discriminate.  SWA said it "does not" discriminate, which in addition to mincing the courts words, kind of thumbs its nose at the verdict and the courts orders.

It's not reprehensible.  It is pretty foolish in my opinion.  It is, also, seemingly a weird thing for the court to order in the first place.  Common in your experience?

This is why people fucking hate attorneys

[sidis 9755]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Frisco is in the eastern district.  And I don't think the Dallas Division would pull from Southlake, which is mostly in Tarrant.

I've seen some snippets of summary judgment rulings, and they don't look like your normal TItle VII summary judgments in the Fifth Circuit, that's for damn sure. https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/3:2017cv02278/292215/232  See page 13.

Here's really the thing, though.  This is the way Title VII cases should probably go.  Whether an employer's non-discriminatory reason for termination is a pretext should always be a jury question, or 90+% of the time.  But it rarely is in the Fifth Circuit.

Also, this case went from Boyle to Scholer to Starr.  Must have had some kind of stink on it.

Southlake and Frisco were metaphorical…

[Zepol87 9172]

3 hours ago, C-Man said:

Shit, have we met in real life? I met him at Happiest Hour when @blacklab was in town for a deposition in the Eskimo Joe situation.

 

This is why people fucking hate attorneys

Yep that was the time. I left a little early but I wouldn’t call it shit 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Zepol87

[TwiceHorn 31292]

6 hours ago, sidis said:

Southlake and Frisco were metaphorical…

Still, most of the exurbs that give Dallas its horrendous reputation these days are not "Dallas proper," not even in Dallas County, and not places from where Dallas County courts, including the federal ones, draw their jury pools.

If you're gonna stick Dallas with Frisco and Plano, you gotta stick Houston with The Woodlands and Katy.

[TwiceHorn 31292]

6 hours ago, C-Man said:

Shit, have we met in real life? I met him at Happiest Hour when @blacklab was in town for a deposition in the Eskimo Joe situation.

 

This is why people fucking hate attorneys

Well, it's kind of funny, that SWA "may not discriminate" is kind of a truism, as it is prohibited by federal law from doing so.

That SWA "does not discriminate" is belied by the jury verdict, as it stands, which found that SWA does indeed discriminate.

It's probably a kooky thing to order them to say in the first place, but even so, you don't trifle with a federal judge without expecting some blowback.

[troph 24565]

8 hours ago, C-Man said:

Shit, have we met in real life? I met him at Happiest Hour when @blacklab was in town for a deposition in the Eskimo Joe situation.

 

This is why people fucking hate attorneys

You can hate lawyers but there is a subtle jab it seems by SWA. Warranted imo but not without exposure to consequences. Words mean something. 
 

 

[troph 24565]

So maybe the conclusion is the whole case is fucked up. SWA was in the right, judge is a whackado, ruling was jacked, SWA was passive aggressive, judge ordered a whacked response, ADF can jump off a cliff. 

[Pam Cummings 9584]

12 hours ago, slorch said:

You think Dems are some fucking beacon unto humanity?

LO-freaking-L.

They are all fucked up.  Period.  We could site examples for days.

I hardly vote for one party.  I'm not a straight ticket dude at all.   The notion that one is better than the other is ludicrous insanity.

 

Funny thing, watching a man lie to himself. Hope you get there eventually.

[Captainant 27468]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it's kind of funny, that SWA "may not discriminate" is kind of a truism, as it is prohibited by federal law from doing so.

That SWA "does not discriminate" is belied by the jury verdict, as it stands, which found that SWA does indeed discriminate.

It's probably a kooky thing to order them to say in the first place, but even so, you don't trifle with a federal judge without expecting some blowback.

 

36 minutes ago, troph said:

You can hate lawyers but there is a subtle jab it seems by SWA. Warranted imo but not without exposure to consequences. Words mean something. 

IMO this seems more like an authoritarian christofascist judge flexing their power over an entity that dared to not let a fundagelical cyberbully another employee. If the injury is that an employee was fired for bullying another employee, this ruling is setting the precedent that religious bullying is a constitutionally protected right

[Ghost of LL 15493]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well the court told them to say they "may not" discriminate.  SWA said it "does not" discriminate, which in addition to mincing the courts words, kind of thumbs its nose at the verdict and the courts orders.

It's not reprehensible.  It is pretty foolish in my opinion.  It is, also, seemingly a weird thing for the court to order in the first place.  Common in your experience?

The EEOC will commonly require a similar kind of statement in a consent decree.  I don't think I've ever seen it outside that context, but the Court definitely has authority to require it as part of its equitable powers granted under Title VII.

The Court told them to say "will not" discriminate.  Southwest wrote that it "does not" discriminate, which to me also implies that it isn't going to start.  Neither the Court's Order nor Southwest's posting addressed the past tense.  So I don't see how Southwest thumbed its nose at the Court's Order in that posting.

In a subsequent posting, it said it disagreed with the Court's Order and would appeal.  But that's not contrary to the Court's Order.  And even if it were, such an Order would be an abuse of discretion.  It's hard to imagine a judge issuing an order that a party can't publicly disagree with its orders.

But I'm still waiting for @Litig8r to identify Southwest's "reprehensible conduct."  But I should be patient.  I'm sure he's just away from Surly for a few minutes with work and family obligations.  Certainly he wouldn't be so chickenshit as to drop a troll bomb and then just scurry away.

38 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

IMO this seems more like an authoritarian christofascist judge flexing their power over an entity that dared to not let a fundagelical cyberbully another employee. If the injury is that an employee was fired for bullying another employee, this ruling is setting the precedent that religious bullying is a constitutionally protected right

And that's why I have some confidence that the Fifth Circuit is going to reverse.  Starr can get away with stupid rulings in individual cases.  But the Fifth Circuit has to worry about larger legal principles.

A Sikh employer can subject employees to videos of slaughterhouses as a means of convincing them to be vegetarians, as required by the Sikh faith.  A Muslim employee can send graphic videos of ISIS beheading people as a warning to his coworkers about what properly can happen to them if they don't accept Islam.  That type of behavior is what the Fifth Circuit would be permitting if it were to affirm this judgment.

The Fifth Circuit loves white nationalist Jesus.  There's no doubt about that.  But it loves big business more.

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it's kind of funny, that SWA "may not discriminate" is kind of a truism, as it is prohibited by federal law from doing so.

That SWA "does not discriminate" is belied by the jury verdict, as it stands, which found that SWA does indeed discriminate.

It's probably a kooky thing to order them to say in the first place, but even so, you don't trifle with a federal judge without expecting some blowback.

They weren’t given a directive to provide an announcement verbatim. To believe SW was not attempting to comply with the order in good faith is insane- apart from the mandate to fly in some rando from ADF for a day

[sidis 9755]

18 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

But I'm still waiting for @Litig8r to identify Southwest's "reprehensible conduct."  But I should be patient.  I'm sure he's just away from Surly for a few minutes with work and family obligations.  Certainly he wouldn't be so chickenshit as to drop a troll bomb and then just scurry away.

he's busy showering because he was told he was saying moronic, uninformed shit after saying moronic, uninformed shit and he can't really handle that.

[troph 24565]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

 

IMO this seems more like an authoritarian christofascist judge flexing their power over an entity that dared to not let a fundagelical cyberbully another employee. If the injury is that an employee was fired for bullying another employee, this ruling is setting the precedent that religious bullying is a constitutionally protected right

Yes and no. This judge is an unqualified hack. And SWA engaged in (understandable) passive aggressive response to a court order. 
 

it’s possible the judge is a christofacist cocksplat and SWA FAFO with a court order and the consequences are not surprising when taking into account the judge is a christofacist cocksplat.  ADF can still kiss my smooth tranny ass. 

[troph 24565]

35 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The EEOC will commonly require a similar kind of statement in a consent decree.  I don't think I've ever seen it outside that context, but the Court definitely has authority to require it as part of its equitable powers granted under Title VII.

The Court told them to say "will not" discriminate.  Southwest wrote that it "does not" discriminate, which to me also implies that it isn't going to start.  Neither the Court's Order nor Southwest's posting addressed the past tense.  So I don't see how Southwest thumbed its nose at the Court's Order in that posting.

In a subsequent posting, it said it disagreed with the Court's Order and would appeal.  But that's not contrary to the Court's Order.  And even if it were, such an Order would be an abuse of discretion.  It's hard to imagine a judge issuing an order that a party can't publicly disagree with its orders.

But I'm still waiting for @Litig8r to identify Southwest's "reprehensible conduct."  But I should be patient.  I'm sure he's just away from Surly for a few minutes with work and family obligations.  Certainly he wouldn't be so chickenshit as to drop a troll bomb and then just scurry away.

And that's why I have some confidence that the Fifth Circuit is going to reverse.  Starr can get away with stupid rulings in individual cases.  But the Fifth Circuit has to worry about larger legal principles.

A Sikh employer can subject employees to videos of slaughterhouses as a means of convincing them to be vegetarians, as required by the Sikh faith.  A Muslim employee can send graphic videos of ISIS beheading people as a warning to his coworkers about what properly can happen to them if they don't accept Islam.  That type of behavior is what the Fifth Circuit would be permitting if it were to affirm this judgment.

The Fifth Circuit loves white nationalist Jesus.  There's no doubt about that.  But it loves big business more.

I had a client be subjected to a DOJ consent decree order and we had to post it on the fucking door. It was infuriating because the company is minority owned, their lawyer is trans, their managers are black and yet they were accused of discrimination and told deal with it. We posted the required language verbatim. Don’t fuck with language required by a fed judge especially when said judge is a whack-ah-fucking-doo.

[wildcat09 29262]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

 

IMO this seems more like an authoritarian christofascist judge flexing their power over an entity that dared to not let a fundagelical cyberbully another employee. If the injury is that an employee was fired for bullying another employee, this ruling is setting the precedent that religious bullying is a constitutionally protected right

It's also setting the stage for workplace violence. If a lot more people feel emboldened to act like this plaintiff, some of them are inevitably going to get punched in the face by their co-workers.

[C-Man 27063]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's also setting the stage for workplace violence. If a lot more people feel emboldened to act like this plaintiff, some of them are inevitably going to get punched in the face by their co-workers.

And that could escalate into more workplace gun violence. 'Murica

[Ghost of LL 15493]

14 minutes ago, troph said:

I had a client be subjected to a DOJ consent decree order and we had to post it on the fucking door. It was infuriating because the company is minority owned, their lawyer is trans, their managers are black and yet they were accused of discrimination and told deal with it. We posted the required language verbatim. Don’t fuck with language required by a fed judge especially when said judge is a whack-ah-fucking-doo.

If you think that Southwest's posting was not in compliance with the Court's Order, then the appropriate remedy is to compel Southwest to post the correct language.  Because that's all the Court can do here--coerce compliance.  This is civil contempt, not criminal contempt.  So the sanction cannot be punitive.  It has to be aimed at obtaining compliance with the Court's Order.

So how does anti-discrimination training for in-house counsel compel compliance with the Court's Order to post particular language?  Even if we assume ADF was a legitimate outfit and not a hate group, how does that training cause Southwest to post that it "will not discriminate" to its employees?

Judge Starr is just a really bad judge who abused his discretion here.

But the really sad part here is that Southwest probably won't mandamus him on the sanctions order.  It'll just comply.  Sorry, in-house lawyers.  You're going to get to sit through eight hours of christofascist indoctrination.  Because Southwest isn't in the business of fighting culture wars against a federal judge.  It's in the business of selling airplane tickets to maximize shareholder value.  

 

But it's definitely appealing that bullshit judgment.

[CooterBrown 17914]

I'm for sure mandating my staff wear appropriate dress for mandatory christian taliban training.

 

[chainsaw 9838]

1 minute ago, CooterBrown said:

I'm for sure mandating my staff wear appropriate dress for mandatory christian taliban training.

 

[Serak The Preparer 3424]

It's so bananas seeing Twice, DDD, and Troph offering Lidig8r even a half-assed defense in this thread. I get that you know him and I'm not suggesting you punch him in the face next time you see him, or even text him and ask "wtf", because ultimately this board doesn't matter much in real life. 

But in this thread he came in, dropped a turn in the punch bowl by calling it a place where reason and logic aren't welcome, then made a post with several factual inaccuracies and admitted ignorance over the main source of frustration. He has since left this thread and I strongly suspect will not return. This is shitty behavior and if being called out on it means he never returns then I don't think that's a bad thing. It's not hard to bring some value to the board. Hell, even bosa brings cheer and smiles to the board every time he posts pictures of tasty looking burgers. I'm not sure Lidig8r is at that level.

 

[troph 24565]

28 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

If you think that Southwest's posting was not in compliance with the Court's Order, then the appropriate remedy is to compel Southwest to post the correct language.  Because that's all the Court can do here--coerce compliance.  This is civil contempt, not criminal contempt.  So the sanction cannot be punitive.  It has to be aimed at obtaining compliance with the Court's Order.

So how does anti-discrimination training for in-house counsel compel compliance with the Court's Order to post particular language?  Even if we assume ADF was a legitimate outfit and not a hate group, how does that training cause Southwest to post that it "will not discriminate" to its employees?

Judge Starr is just a really bad judge who abused his discretion here.

But the really sad part here is that Southwest probably won't mandamus him on the sanctions order.  It'll just comply.  Sorry, in-house lawyers.  You're going to get to sit through eight hours of christofascist indoctrination.  Because Southwest isn't in the business of fighting culture wars against a federal judge.  It's in the business of selling airplane tickets to maximize shareholder value.  

 

But it's definitely appealing that bullshit judgment.

I agree 100% but SWA shoulda known christofacist gonna christofacist. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by troph

[Dahobbs 17449]

Has anyone had any luck pulling more information about the verdict? What were the damages based on? I presume she was seeking back pay and reinstatement. What else is there here? Even if you have the Trumpiest of jury's, I still have a hard time buying that verdict unless the facts are very different than what has been summarized so far. 

[Dahobbs 17449]

30 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

It's so bananas seeing Twice, DDD, and Troph offering Lidig8r even a half-assed defense in this thread. I get that you know him and I'm not suggesting you punch him in the face next time you see him, or even text him and ask "wtf", because ultimately this board doesn't matter much in real life. 

But in this thread he came in, dropped a turn in the punch bowl by calling it a place where reason and logic aren't welcome, then made a post with several factual inaccuracies and admitted ignorance over the main source of frustration. He has since left this thread and I strongly suspect will not return. This is shitty behavior and if being called out on it means he never returns then I don't think that's a bad thing. It's not hard to bring some value to the board. Hell, even bosa brings cheer and smiles to the board every time he posts pictures of tasty looking burgers. I'm not sure Lidig8r is at that level.

 

In short, @Lidig8r is a coward. 

[sidis 9755]

10 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

It's so bananas seeing Twice, DDD, and Troph offering Lidig8r even a half-assed defense in this thread. I get that you know him and I'm not suggesting you punch him in the face next time you see him, or even text him and ask "wtf", because ultimately this board doesn't matter much in real life. 

But in this thread he came in, dropped a turn in the punch bowl by calling it a place where reason and logic aren't welcome, then made a post with several factual inaccuracies and admitted ignorance over the main source of frustration. He has since left this thread and I strongly suspect will not return. This is shitty behavior and if being called out on it means he never returns then I don't think that's a bad thing. It's not hard to bring some value to the board. Hell, even bosa brings cheer and smiles to the board every time he posts pictures of tasty looking burgers. I'm not sure Lidig8r is at that level.

 

my take is that it is in ddd and twice's nature to always give the benefit of the doubt and try to gravitate back to civility which i generally appreciate about them.  on top of that, they are both clearly influenced by some admiration of some personal journey/redemption/incident/something that lidig8r was involved in or helped with or something that i am not privy to but suppose must have some profound impact on their perception and i totally understand that.  knowing someone in real life leads to giving a much wider berth on here which is not a bad thing.

troph is clearly even moreso impacted by it at a personal level (or there's a misogynistic joke in there about women's heightened emotional hysteria) since she came in hot from the top rope with a bit of a jump to the end without considering the actual details.  she called me "dead ass wrong" about calling him out for his hot take bullshit and then, upon review, said that it was dumb hot take bullshit and that we all screw up so...okay.

either way, regardless of lidig8r's presumably endearing history, while i can understand their defenses based on personal connection, i think that anyone that comes in with a hollow self-aggrandizing, superiority preamble and post-script about the lack of decorum and value in the forum laced with a bunch of preemptive mudslinging, then proceeds to boast about how uninformed they are on the issue that's central to the controversy in a shallow attempt to run cover for a fucking moron of a "judge" issuing clear culture war rulings that are unbelievably fucking stupid - then disappearing with zero contrition - is telling me how i should value their contributions to this forum. 

[chainsaw 9838]

26 minutes ago, troph said:

I agree 100% but SWA shoulda known christofacist gonna christofacist. 

[DDD Dad 14252]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

If you think that Southwest's posting was not in compliance with the Court's Order, then the appropriate remedy is to compel Southwest to post the correct language.  Because that's all the Court can do here--coerce compliance.  This is civil contempt, not criminal contempt.  So the sanction cannot be punitive.  It has to be aimed at obtaining compliance with the Court's Order.

So how does anti-discrimination training for in-house counsel compel compliance with the Court's Order to post particular language?  Even if we assume ADF was a legitimate outfit and not a hate group, how does that training cause Southwest to post that it "will not discriminate" to its employees?

Judge Starr is just a really bad judge who abused his discretion here.

But the really sad part here is that Southwest probably won't mandamus him on the sanctions order.  It'll just comply.  Sorry, in-house lawyers.  You're going to get to sit through eight hours of christofascist indoctrination.  Because Southwest isn't in the business of fighting culture wars against a federal judge.  It's in the business of selling airplane tickets to maximize shareholder value.  

 

But it's definitely appealing that bullshit judgment.

I should ask Mark Shaw his thoughts on this.

[Horn Dog 9674]

If I am a SWA attorney, I would go ahead and take this class, secretly record the entire thing, then leak it on social media with #JudgeBrantleyStarr hashtag and expose this fucker for the zealot that he is

[Ghost of LL 15493]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Has anyone had any luck pulling more information about the verdict? What were the damages based on? I presume she was seeking back pay and reinstatement. What else is there here? Even if you have the Trumpiest of jury's, I still have a hard time buying that verdict unless the facts are very different than what has been summarized so far. 

The damages were mostly punitive--$3.5 in punitives against Southwest and $1.0 in punitives against TWU.  Only $500K in direct and compensatory damages.  Which raises some due-process issues.

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I should ask Mark Shaw his thoughts on this.

Yeah, you should.  I wonder how Mark's doing these days.

1 minute ago, Horn Dog said:

If I am a SWA attorney, I would go ahead and take this class, secretly record the entire thing, then leak it on social media with #JudgeBrantleyStarr hashtag and expose this fucker for the zealot that he is

Yeah--I would, too (minus the hashtag, because I try not to go around unnecessarily pissing off federal judges).

[DDD Dad 14252]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah, you should.  I wonder how Mark's doing these days.

I'll tell him you said hi.  His wife and SWMBO are good friends.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:  SWA is headquarted in Dallas.  It was a Texas judge.  Texas has pretty employer-friendly employment laws.  Outside of discriminatory action (protected class, of which religion is one), an employee can find their ass fired for all kinds of bad behavior.

The plaintiff wasn't fired for being a Christian.  The plaintiff was fired for being an asshole.  The very fact SWA didn't fire all Christians seems to bolster the point, doesn't it?

Is it just a bullshit ruling, or am I missing something (which seems to happen often)?

Edited August 9, 2023 by jimmyjazz

[Js1 85115]

Of course it’s bullshit

[C-Man 27063]

28 minutes ago, sidis said:

my take is that it is in ddd and twice's nature to always give the benefit of the doubt and try to gravitate back to civility which i generally appreciate about them.  on top of that, they are both clearly influenced by some admiration of some personal journey/redemption/incident/something that lidig8r was involved in or helped with or something that i am not privy to but suppose must have some profound impact on their perception and i totally understand that.  knowing someone in real life leads to giving a much wider berth on here which is not a bad thing.

troph is clearly even moreso impacted by it at a personal level (or there's a misogynistic joke in there about women's heightened emotional hysteria) since she came in hot from the top rope with a bit of a jump to the end without considering the actual details.  she called me "dead ass wrong" about calling him out for his hot take bullshit and then, upon review, said that it was dumb hot take bullshit and that we all screw up so...okay.

either way, regardless of lidig8r's presumably endearing history, while i can understand their defenses based on personal connection, i think that anyone that comes in with a hollow self-aggrandizing, superiority preamble and post-script about the lack of decorum and value in the forum laced with a bunch of preemptive mudslinging, then proceeds to boast about how uninformed they are on the issue that's central to the controversy in a shallow attempt to run cover for a fucking moron of a "judge" issuing clear culture war rulings that are unbelievably fucking stupid - then disappearing with zero contrition - is telling me how i should value their contributions to this forum. 

I hope I'm not speaking out of school but several years ago @Lidig8r's young adult daughter fought a brave but ultimately unsuccessful battle with a severe eating disorder and passed away. He was very candid on one of the boards about his experience, from well before she actually passed away. I, too, met him briefly at the same HH that @Zepol87mentioned, which, unfortunately, I'd forgotten who the other players were. @Jive Turkey was there too, I think. Truthfully, I wasn't a huge fan of Lidig8r's Shag persona (this was pre-Surly) but he changed my mind in that HH. I came away with the impression he was a solid dude and then at some point after that, I read the situation with his daughter and how that ended. Losing a child like that at that age is brutal and there was much empathy shown by many of the resident assholes on this site.

That said, his initial post on this was way off the mark. That, coupled with the off-putting remark about the grossness of the CR, etc, was a bit over-the-top IMO and he was rightly called out on it. He hasn't returned to respond to any of it, which doesn't help.

[DanRydell 799]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'd sincerely like to see the verdict sheet and jury instructions.  Reports are 3.5M punitives against SWA and about 1M total against the union.  Sounds like unconstitutional punitives to me.

Funny thing.  In 30 years of practice, I don't believe I have ever seen a Dallas federal jury.  Conceivably, they could be old and white af.  Dallas County jurors by and large are not, pretty diverse and pretty balanced.

A Dallas federal jury is going to draw from Ellis, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Navarro, and Rockwall Counties in additional to Dallas County so yeah, it's going to tend to be a lot whiter and a lot more conservative.

[Gap03 3287]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

The damages were mostly punitive--$3.5 in punitives against Southwest and $1.0 in punitives against TWU.  Only $500K in direct and compensatory damages.  Which raises some due-process issues.

Yeah, you should.  I wonder how Mark's doing these days.

Yeah--I would, too (minus the hashtag, because I try not to go around unnecessarily pissing off federal judges).

Didn't Starr actually already reduce the damages?  See link below:

Judge reduces award for flight attendant who sued Southwest | AP News

Quote

A Dallas jury ruled in Carter’s favor in July, deciding that Southwest should pay Carter $4.15 million and the union should pay $950,000.

The judge this week reduced that award to $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from Southwest and $300,000 from the union, $150,000 in back pay and about $60,000 in interest.

I guess the federal limits are so clear that even this knob didn't think he could let them stand, but he still wanted to make his point in other ways. 

[troph 24565]

1 hour ago, sidis said:

 

troph is clearly even moreso impacted by it at a personal level (or there's a misogynistic joke in there about women's heightened emotional hysteria) since she came in hot from the top rope with a bit of a jump to the end without considering the actual details.  she called me "dead ass wrong" about calling him out for his hot take bullshit and then, upon review, said that it was dumb hot take bullshit and that we all screw up so...okay.

 

I never said he was right, in fact I've always said he was wrong about ADF and this judge (I also don't like the dig at the CR, there are more trolls here but the smartest posters on this site regularly post in the CR despite the fools).

I said you were wrong - as are many others - for thinking he might actually be a christofacist - and most of the vitrol was more along these lines than his generally just shitty take. it's one thing to to be an internet poster who swooped in and made a shitty and wrong take on a situation that you typically know something about and its entirely different to be a right winged maniac defending the judge and ADF. He was the former, not the latter.

I'm more with DDD and Twice on this than any personal connection (though he and I have had private conversations) - I think civility is a virtue, and even more so when suicide or mental illness is involved.

the sexist jokes are oddly affirming even though I should be upset, kinda like the time I was called a bitchy cunt by a male lawyer I was going up against. badge of honor.  so in surly form...

Edited August 9, 2023 by troph

[Ghost of LL 15493]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:  SWA is headquarted in Dallas.  It was a Texas judge.  Texas has pretty employer-friendly employment laws.  Outside of discriminatory action (protected class, of which religion is one), an employee can find their ass fired for all kinds of bad behavior.

The plaintiff wasn't fired for being a Christian.  The plaintiff was fired for being an asshole.  The very fact SWA didn't fire all Christians seems to bolster the point, doesn't it?

Is it just a bullshit ruling, or am I missing something (which seems to happen often)?

I think what you're missing is that in 2023 America, Christian=Asshole

1 hour ago, DanRydell said:

A Dallas federal jury is going to draw from Ellis, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Navarro, and Rockwall Counties in additional to Dallas County so yeah, it's going to tend to be a lot whiter and a lot more conservative.

And ironically, in most contexts that means that a federal jury will be more employer-friendly than a state-court jury that only draws from Dallas County.

33 minutes ago, troph said:

I never said he was right, in fact I've always said he was wrong about ADF and this judge (I also don't like the dig at the CR, there are more trolls here but the smartest posters on this site regularly post in the CR despite the fools).

I said you were wrong - as are many others - for thinking he might actually be a christofacist - and most of the vitrol was more along these lines than his generally just shitty take. it's one thing to to be an internet poster who swooped in and made a shitty and wrong take on a situation that you typically know something about and its entirely different to be a right winged maniac defending the judge and ADF. He was the former, not the latter.

I'm more with DDD and Twice on this than any personal connection (though he and I have had private conversations) - I think civility is a virtue, and even more so when suicide or mental illness is involved.

the sexist jokes are oddly affirming even though I should be upset, kinda like the time I was called a bitchy cunt by a male lawyer I was going up against. badge of honor.  so in surly form...

I only called you that because you were being a bitchy cunt.

[Poe It Up 126]

A little payback for all of the mandatory sensitivity training.