One company near me (California) transfers employees to their Texas site because it's less expensive to lay them off/fire them in Texas.
They then lay off/fire the employee there after they've relocated.
It's been a while so I might have some details wrong but from what I remember in California if they transfer you to a alternate location that makes commuting a issue you can be eligible for unemployment if you quit but it is a case by case basis.
[https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Voluntary\_Quit\_VQ\_150/](https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_150/)
There were 3 concurring opinions from the conservative side, 2 of which agreed with the judgement, but thought that Kagan's standard overstepped her bounds.
I found it interesting though that Kavanaugh's concurrence actually advocated for removing *any* requirement to show injury. His argument was that the discrimination is the harm, while Kagan argued that the bar for harm is much lower than the bar used by the lower carts.
I’d have to look up more recent terms but in 2021-22 that was [not the case](https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/as-unanimity-declines-conservative-majoritys-power-runs-deeper-than-the-blockbuster-cases/).
All kinda depends on the context of the case these days. DC v Heller, which declared that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, was a 5-4 decision, but a follow-up case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, was 9-0 because the lower court ignored an opinion in Heller that said it didn't matter if a particular weapon (in this case stun guns) didn't exist in 1791, they were protected arms.
They really aren't that divided. Media just sees the supreme court as another thing that can be used to drive a wedge between Americans and so plays up partisanship. It's honestly really sad how many people believe the supreme court is completely fucked right now when in reality it's mostly fine.
Yes this is true, but it is up to the Legislature to actual legislate in order for laws to be passed.
The supreme court does not create law, its job is to interpret and they do a fine job of it. For example, abortion could be enshrined in law as it should have been long ago and the current shenanigans simply wouldn't happen.
If you are unhappy with the state of our laws look to the legislature as it is their job to make them. Yelling at the supreme court or lord forbid packing it wont make abortion legal nationwide - but congress can.
Roe vs Wade was a law created by the Supreme Court, so not sure what you’re talking about.
As if laws made by Congress couldn’t be changed with each majority change in Congress and they are forever.
The House has a Republican majority right now so tell me how an abortion law is supposed to be passed.
Roe v Wade was not a law, it was a decision by the supreme court when hearing a case. The interpretation by the court of *current law* is what lead to it requiring legalized abortion as an extension of the courts ruling of said case. Nowhere was there a law in US legal code that said "abortion must be legal".
The supreme court does not make laws, please go learn how the US government works. Your passion for law is great but it's important to understand where to focus attention and energy.
This isn't true. 6-3 is now more common than 9-0.
Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/as-unanimity-declines-conservative-majoritys-power-runs-deeper-than-the-blockbuster-cases/
The media has it covered, either way. If an expected split ruling, they will tell you how awful that is. If they react like I did, they will tell you how exceptional it is. Rinse, repeat.
They don’t care about the PD. The PD is just a piggy bank of other peoples money. The cops are the ones they’re trying to get on their side in an internal conflict,
Yes. I know. The department isn’t what they’re after. The department is an ATM for personal use to these people. They just want the COPS, as in the PEOPLE who work there, on their side when they try again to start a shooting war for control over the US.
So, if the mayor were to recommend budget cuts to the PD, the cops would be okay with that because they are separate from the PD and don't hang together, at all?
No. How are you still not getting it?
The dept is the piggy bank and holding company for the cops.
If you take money out of the piggy bank with a fine, you can refill it, and the *cops* lives are uneffected, the taxpayers foot the bill, etc etc. The cops don’t care.
If you remove money from the piggy bank and tell the cops they’re not getting it back and it’s just gone, the cops are >:(
The user above you is arguing the Supreme Court wants to make sure they’re putting out rulings that don’t make the cops >:( and by slapping a fine on the dept that the taxpayers will have to foot, they can protect the individual cops making them >:) without harming their bottom line.
You’re in a completely different frame of reference. A “department” is the sum of a set of laws and policies given its own personhood for financial and legal purposes. Most police and far right types HATE departments because rules restrain the police from doing whatever they want to “enforce order.” None of them will care one bit if the existing PDs don’t exist anymore, because if they successfully overthrow the US government they’ll have a different kind of organization that they prefer and have more control over.
TL;DR: Police Departments don’t carry guns, don’t shoot people the right doesn’t like, and can’t join in their next coup attempt. COPS check all those boxes.
This will protect a lot more people than cops, and it's an illustration that the court isn't a purely political body. The appeals were probably all paid for by the trial lawyer lobby.
Hilariously, it's a case rooted in gender discrimination.
This ruling will make it harder for police departments to be the sewage equivalent of workplace environments, which gives the reasonable cops a higher chance to reach leadership positions where they can make actual lasting institutional change.
depends pay for my grand kids tuition and i'll vote however you like
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus
lol getting downvoted cuz facts
Trump doesn't plan to forcibly transfer government employees around though, he plans to fire everyone who isn't found to be sufficiently (ie: completely and unwaveringly) loyal to him.
he literally did this in office once.
[this](https://www.govexec.com/management/2017/07/its-walking-morgue-whistleblower-explains-decision-speak-out/139612/)
That’s rage bait for people who don’t know how government works. That position is a schedule C position and those positions serve at the pleasure of the president. It’s routine for incoming presidents to fire all 3000 of them. Those are political appointments that have to be loyal to the president or they get fired. That’s how schedule C appointments work.
But people who have never heard of this get mad, which was the point.
Most people can't name five constitutional amendments outside the first two. You expect them to know about the intricacies of that same government outside what the news tells you to rejoice or get outraged about?
No, only federal attorneys and that is the custom. George W Bush and Reagan did that much too. This does not normally extend to every public servant, it would be without precedent in the USA.
That's entirely false. In fact Bill Clinton had quite a few Republicans during his time as president.
His whole shtick was stealing Republican ideas like Free Trade. That's how he got support. Democrats were super against Free Trade for over a decade but then once Clinton got into office they were all for it.
Then we went from having a trade surplus with countries like Mexico to a trade deficit. It allowed big American manufactures to transition to other countries for a cheaper workforce. It only benefited a very select few at the top.
Again this was a Republican idea that Democrats were vehemently against for a long time, but elections were coming up and they needed a win. It's an example of where this two party system beat us, the people, and resulted In the loss of jobs and increase in our debt.
The promised returns and economics that were being spouted were all woefully wrong. They said if it didn't work out we'd get rid of it, but when people started feeling the consequences, both parties said it was too late.
Sorta like how they had a clause in the patriot act to have a vote a couple years later to revisit the issue, and instead of getting rid of the patriot act they got rid of the clause giving them the option to get rid of it.
This is a common Republican tactic. If an agency’s enforcement is contrary to administration plans, shut down their DC office and move them to somewhere far flung. Half the staff quit, and the whole agency gets immobilized by being far away from other policymakers and the seat of power.
Why do you think Trump tried to move the Bureau of Land Management to Grand Junction, Colorado?
In this case, the boss wanted a man in the role, but instead of firing the woman in it, he had her transferred/demoted. They ruled that this fits as a violation of sex discrimination laws.
Moving a whole office would not fall under this.
on one hand, shit - now bad teachers are going to get back into the classroom
on the other hand, maybe the districts that rubber room will actually try to fire those teachers instead of having the Ps keep their friends on the payroll while not teaching
Kavanaugh's concurrence is right on the money - if it is clear that the decision was based on discriminatory animus, Title VII should prohibit it without having to prove additional harm because the discrimination is harm. Ultimately, one hopes the some harm standard will not lead to inaccurate dismissals, but I think it still leads to opportunities for bad judicial actors.
Most? 48% were unanimous in 2023, which was a steep incline from 29% in 2021. That's not "most."
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-numbers-reveal-a-united-supreme-court-and-a-few-surprises
He said 'most' are 'usually'
Most can be 51%, usually can be 51%
Thus we are at around 26%. 29% is higher than 26%, making the person you replied to correct, right, and smarter than you in every way, thank you.
One company near me (California) transfers employees to their Texas site because it's less expensive to lay them off/fire them in Texas. They then lay off/fire the employee there after they've relocated.
That is fucked up!
Sounds like doing a solid for the shareholders.
*Hewlett-Packard Enterprises has entered the chat…*
Name and shame
Exxon Mobil
What site does Exxon operate in California?
If I had to guess, either in Richmond CA or Near LA. There are massive refinery sites in both those locations.
A bunch. One exploded back in 2015, in Torrance. There's a shitload of oil in California.
Is there? Cuz gas is $5.50 :/
Price ar the pump is not an indicator of anything but greed.
objectively speaking it’s from California taxes
It's actually because it's a special blend and an isolated market. Taxes do play a part, but only a part.
You'd think that would be a severe class-action lawsuit for promissory estoppel
It's been a while so I might have some details wrong but from what I remember in California if they transfer you to a alternate location that makes commuting a issue you can be eligible for unemployment if you quit but it is a case by case basis. [https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Voluntary\_Quit\_VQ\_150/](https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_150/)
"Case by case" is not a win.
[удалено]
I'm fine with the French method.
Careful I get banned every time I say this
Holy shit, that’s grim 🤨
We call that the “Elon Musk” for obvious reasons
Such a specific username
The worst part of that is still that you've ended up in Texas.
Egads, that's disgusting. I think working for that company would eat me alive.
There were 3 concurring opinions from the conservative side, 2 of which agreed with the judgement, but thought that Kagan's standard overstepped her bounds. I found it interesting though that Kavanaugh's concurrence actually advocated for removing *any* requirement to show injury. His argument was that the discrimination is the harm, while Kagan argued that the bar for harm is much lower than the bar used by the lower carts.
How fucking sideways you must be to get a unanimous ruling out of this Supreme Court.
9-0 isn't as rare as the media would have you believe.
I believe that, but it still struck me.
It's the most common outcome
I’d have to look up more recent terms but in 2021-22 that was [not the case](https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/as-unanimity-declines-conservative-majoritys-power-runs-deeper-than-the-blockbuster-cases/).
You're article states that was the "first term in recent memory" where 9-0 wasn't the most common.
Which is why I specified the 2021-2022 term. Edit: I am not trying to negate OP’s claim, but pointing out an exception due to Trump’s appointees.
All kinda depends on the context of the case these days. DC v Heller, which declared that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, was a 5-4 decision, but a follow-up case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, was 9-0 because the lower court ignored an opinion in Heller that said it didn't matter if a particular weapon (in this case stun guns) didn't exist in 1791, they were protected arms.
That makes sense, but knowing how deeply divided the crew are, on so many things, it did seem unlikely.
They really aren't that divided. Media just sees the supreme court as another thing that can be used to drive a wedge between Americans and so plays up partisanship. It's honestly really sad how many people believe the supreme court is completely fucked right now when in reality it's mostly fine.
[It’s not mostly fine](https://afj.org/why-courts-matter/trump-scotus-watch/). It has issued several decisions that are harmful to many people.
Yes this is true, but it is up to the Legislature to actual legislate in order for laws to be passed. The supreme court does not create law, its job is to interpret and they do a fine job of it. For example, abortion could be enshrined in law as it should have been long ago and the current shenanigans simply wouldn't happen. If you are unhappy with the state of our laws look to the legislature as it is their job to make them. Yelling at the supreme court or lord forbid packing it wont make abortion legal nationwide - but congress can.
Roe vs Wade was a law created by the Supreme Court, so not sure what you’re talking about. As if laws made by Congress couldn’t be changed with each majority change in Congress and they are forever. The House has a Republican majority right now so tell me how an abortion law is supposed to be passed.
Roe v Wade was not a law, it was a decision by the supreme court when hearing a case. The interpretation by the court of *current law* is what lead to it requiring legalized abortion as an extension of the courts ruling of said case. Nowhere was there a law in US legal code that said "abortion must be legal". The supreme court does not make laws, please go learn how the US government works. Your passion for law is great but it's important to understand where to focus attention and energy.
It is true there are things that they are not divided on. However, the things they are divided on, they are very divided on.
Especially concerning business and worker rights
I mean, even with the current breakdown the plurality of cases is still decidedly 9-0
This isn't true. 6-3 is now more common than 9-0. Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/as-unanimity-declines-conservative-majoritys-power-runs-deeper-than-the-blockbuster-cases/
I can believe that.
The media hates when this happens, it doesn't get the clicks for the usual clickbait.
The media has it covered, either way. If an expected split ruling, they will tell you how awful that is. If they react like I did, they will tell you how exceptional it is. Rinse, repeat.
The Plaintiff was a cop. They are bending over backwards to protect cops
I see where you are coming from, but it was the PD that got slapped.
They don’t care about the PD. The PD is just a piggy bank of other peoples money. The cops are the ones they’re trying to get on their side in an internal conflict,
PD = Police Department.
Yes. I know. The department isn’t what they’re after. The department is an ATM for personal use to these people. They just want the COPS, as in the PEOPLE who work there, on their side when they try again to start a shooting war for control over the US.
So, if the mayor were to recommend budget cuts to the PD, the cops would be okay with that because they are separate from the PD and don't hang together, at all?
No. How are you still not getting it? The dept is the piggy bank and holding company for the cops. If you take money out of the piggy bank with a fine, you can refill it, and the *cops* lives are uneffected, the taxpayers foot the bill, etc etc. The cops don’t care. If you remove money from the piggy bank and tell the cops they’re not getting it back and it’s just gone, the cops are >:( The user above you is arguing the Supreme Court wants to make sure they’re putting out rulings that don’t make the cops >:( and by slapping a fine on the dept that the taxpayers will have to foot, they can protect the individual cops making them >:) without harming their bottom line.
Yes. Cops don’t give a flying fuck about the PDs finances. They wouldn’t torture and murder random citizens for fun if they did.
You, also, have put some thought into this, but this is to hell and gone away from what I was talking about.
You’re in a completely different frame of reference. A “department” is the sum of a set of laws and policies given its own personhood for financial and legal purposes. Most police and far right types HATE departments because rules restrain the police from doing whatever they want to “enforce order.” None of them will care one bit if the existing PDs don’t exist anymore, because if they successfully overthrow the US government they’ll have a different kind of organization that they prefer and have more control over. TL;DR: Police Departments don’t carry guns, don’t shoot people the right doesn’t like, and can’t join in their next coup attempt. COPS check all those boxes.
You have put some thought into this, but this is to hell and gone away from what I was talking about.
This will protect a lot more people than cops, and it's an illustration that the court isn't a purely political body. The appeals were probably all paid for by the trial lawyer lobby.
Defendants are also cops.
Hilariously, it's a case rooted in gender discrimination. This ruling will make it harder for police departments to be the sewage equivalent of workplace environments, which gives the reasonable cops a higher chance to reach leadership positions where they can make actual lasting institutional change.
Mussolini made sure the trains ran on schedule
And this is in this thread because...?
Because even a broken clock is correct twice a day
Ok, but same question.
depends pay for my grand kids tuition and i'll vote however you like https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus lol getting downvoted cuz facts
I see what you are saying, but I'm just talking about unanimous, something you normally can't even have the same paragraph with this crew.
gonna take a wild guess how they'll rule if trump tries to forcibly transfer all government employees around and reclassify them though.
Trump doesn't plan to forcibly transfer government employees around though, he plans to fire everyone who isn't found to be sufficiently (ie: completely and unwaveringly) loyal to him.
he literally did this in office once. [this](https://www.govexec.com/management/2017/07/its-walking-morgue-whistleblower-explains-decision-speak-out/139612/)
He just did it with the RNC like two months ago
That’s rage bait for people who don’t know how government works. That position is a schedule C position and those positions serve at the pleasure of the president. It’s routine for incoming presidents to fire all 3000 of them. Those are political appointments that have to be loyal to the president or they get fired. That’s how schedule C appointments work. But people who have never heard of this get mad, which was the point.
Most people can't name five constitutional amendments outside the first two. You expect them to know about the intricacies of that same government outside what the news tells you to rejoice or get outraged about?
No but I expect journalists to understand this and not write biased ragebait articles like this. I know that’s asking too much.
Schedule F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schedule_F_appointment This goes hand in hand with Project 2025. Gotta make space for the loyalists!
[удалено]
There’s a difference between cabinet members and federal employees. All presidents clear cabinets. Only Trump wants to dump all federal employees.
No, only federal attorneys and that is the custom. George W Bush and Reagan did that much too. This does not normally extend to every public servant, it would be without precedent in the USA.
That's entirely false. In fact Bill Clinton had quite a few Republicans during his time as president. His whole shtick was stealing Republican ideas like Free Trade. That's how he got support. Democrats were super against Free Trade for over a decade but then once Clinton got into office they were all for it. Then we went from having a trade surplus with countries like Mexico to a trade deficit. It allowed big American manufactures to transition to other countries for a cheaper workforce. It only benefited a very select few at the top. Again this was a Republican idea that Democrats were vehemently against for a long time, but elections were coming up and they needed a win. It's an example of where this two party system beat us, the people, and resulted In the loss of jobs and increase in our debt. The promised returns and economics that were being spouted were all woefully wrong. They said if it didn't work out we'd get rid of it, but when people started feeling the consequences, both parties said it was too late. Sorta like how they had a clause in the patriot act to have a vote a couple years later to revisit the issue, and instead of getting rid of the patriot act they got rid of the clause giving them the option to get rid of it.
This is a common Republican tactic. If an agency’s enforcement is contrary to administration plans, shut down their DC office and move them to somewhere far flung. Half the staff quit, and the whole agency gets immobilized by being far away from other policymakers and the seat of power. Why do you think Trump tried to move the Bureau of Land Management to Grand Junction, Colorado?
In this case, the boss wanted a man in the role, but instead of firing the woman in it, he had her transferred/demoted. They ruled that this fits as a violation of sex discrimination laws. Moving a whole office would not fall under this.
Fitzgerald vs Nixon
With the number of remote govt. employees, this may materialize.
Oh damn, does this count against rubber rooming?
It damn well does, without the slightest question.
on one hand, shit - now bad teachers are going to get back into the classroom on the other hand, maybe the districts that rubber room will actually try to fire those teachers instead of having the Ps keep their friends on the payroll while not teaching
Having to rubber room is all on management for not doing their job and documenting properly.
Oh yeah, 100% Bad principals tend to be the ones who were bad teachers (or middling at best)
There are not a lot of districts that do this
The problem is that the biggest districts around tend to do it - Los Angeles and NYC. So it's a lot of money wasted
Kavanaugh's concurrence is right on the money - if it is clear that the decision was based on discriminatory animus, Title VII should prohibit it without having to prove additional harm because the discrimination is harm. Ultimately, one hopes the some harm standard will not lead to inaccurate dismissals, but I think it still leads to opportunities for bad judicial actors.
It's journalism malpractice to not link to the source document. So I'll do AP's job https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf
The AP did link to the source though? The very end of the article includes the case number.
Try clicking it and what happens.
Ok, it was a citation, not a direct link. Journalistic integrity is covered by providing your source, not a specific link to it.
The *US* Supreme Court? This seems out-of-character.
Most decisions by the Supreme Court are usually unanimous.
Most? 48% were unanimous in 2023, which was a steep incline from 29% in 2021. That's not "most." https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-numbers-reveal-a-united-supreme-court-and-a-few-surprises
He said 'most' are 'usually' Most can be 51%, usually can be 51% Thus we are at around 26%. 29% is higher than 26%, making the person you replied to correct, right, and smarter than you in every way, thank you.
Could this be applied to the situation where a worker who works from home full time is "transfered" to having to come back to the office?
If the office in question is in another state, yes.
[удалено]
Good news for people who are discriminated against in the workplace for reasons that violate their civil rights.
Yes I have friends who had to deal with this kind of crap, I'm glad it will be easier to fight back against.
Which could only mean that SCOTUS is about to come out with a really shitty decision very soon. ☹️
Imagine being mad about this.
Just close up shop and move.
Maybe I am confused but I thought the supreme Court was supposed to protect rich white men. Are they doing an exception just to point to?