A group of 35 members of anti-war activism organization Witness Against Torture appeared in a DC Superior Court Tuesday. The 35 were arrested at a protest in front of the US Supreme Court in January, where they were demonstrating for the closure of the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]; they have since been indicted on charges of violating an ordinance barring demonstrations on court grounds. Prosecutors had offered to drop the charges, but the protesters have insisted on appearing in court. The Washington Post has more.
At their court appearance, protesters wore orange jumpsuits similar to the ones worn by Guantanamo detainees and some identified themselves using the names of detainees as a way to "symbolically grant the Guantanamo prisoners their day in court". The January protest took place on the sixth anniversary of the opening of the GuantaIn a pair of workplace discrimination cases, the Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for workers to sue employers who retaliate against them for reporting bias.
One ruling, affecting private employers, will give employees more time to file suit and larger potential damage awards when they claim employer retaliation than they had before. The 7-2 decision was titled CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Hedrick Humphries, an assistant manager at an Illinois Cracker Barrel restaurant, was deemed to have filed his racial discrimination complaint too late. He said he had been fired because he was black and because he had complained about racial bias directed against a co-worker. Under Title VII, once the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a "right to sue" letter, plaintiffs like Humphries have 90 days to file suit in federal court. Damages are also subject to caps depending on the size of the company.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Humphries’ Title VII claim was foreclosed, but the court ruled that his suit could go forward under 42 U.S.C 1981, the Civil War-era law that bars discrimination in private contracts. The Supreme Court, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, agreed, finding that under Court precedent and congressional enactments, Section 1981 should encompass retaliation claims -- even though retaliation is not specifically mentioned as a cause of action.
Under that law, a plaintiff has four years to sue, and there is no limit on damages, says Diana Hoover, an employment litigator for Mayer Brown. She said that most federal circuits had already ruled that Section 1981 suits were allowed for retaliation, but "the law will get more play from plaintiffs lawyers now that the Supreme Court has spoken." Some claims that were "stale" under Title VII could get revived because of the decision, she added.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented. "Retaliation is not discrimination based on race," Thomas wrote, adding that retaliation is directed at conduct, not race.namo Bay facility in Cuba.
Read More
