Justice Department Sues University In Oklahoma For Discriminating Against Transgender Employee

Photo credit: http://news.uscourts.gov/

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Monday it is suing a state university in Oklahoma because it denied a transgender professor a promotion, which subsequently led to the employee’s termination.

03312015_Oklahoma Tweet_Twitter

Both the Southeastern Oklahoma State University and the Regional University System of Oklahoma (RUSO) are being sued by the DOJ for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the department announced in a statement Monday.

The reasoning was Southeastern discriminated “against a transgender employee on the basis of her sex and retaliating against her when she complained about the discrimination.” This is the background as told by the DOJ:

Rachel Tudor began working for Southeastern as an Assistant Professor in 2004.  At the time of her hire, Tudor presented as a man. In 2007, Tudor, consistent with her gender identity, began to present as a woman at work.

Throughout her employment, Tudor performed her job well, and in 2009, she applied for a promotion to the tenured position of Associate Professor. Southeastern’s administration denied her application, overruling the recommendations of her department chair and other tenured faculty from her department.

Tudor filed complaints in 2010 because she was denied tenure. She alleges she was denied the right to re-apply for tenure and promotion after the university learned of the complaints, in spite of the school’s policy allowing for re-application. After the 2010-11 school year, Tudor was fired because she did not have tenure.

“By standing beside Dr. Tudor, the Department of Justice sends a clear message that we are committed to eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.

We will not allow unfair biases and unjust prejudices to prevent transgender Americans from reaching their full potential as workers and as citizens.  And we will continue to work tirelessly, using every legal tool available, to ensure that transgender individuals are guaranteed the rights and protections that all Americans deserve.

h/t: Reason

Share this if you find this story interesting.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Holding Hillary Accountable For ‘Criminal’ Acts Will Depend On This One Thing, Says Judge Nap

Image Credit: Fox News

“She was so good at this, she could have taught Richard Nixon some lessons.” That’s how Judge Andrew Napolitano just described Hillary Clinton’s attempt to keep tight control over all of her emails during her tenure as secretary of state — even the emails concerning her official government business.

The Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst appeared on “America’s Newsroom” Monday morning to respond to the news that the private email server on which Mrs. Clinton kept all of her digital communications had been wiped clean. That, argues the judge, could be “obstruction of justice,” given that congressional subpoenas for those emails had been issued prior to their destruction.

Napolitano told host Bill Hemmer that Mrs. Clinton has now admitted to a number of acts which might be considered crimes, but that the former Obama administration official could get away with what she’s done if no one in authority has the “courage” to pursue her.

“None of her crimes will get to first base in terms of prosecution without a prosecutor to pursue them.” The judge added that it will take one thing to bring Hillary’s controversial actions in front of a grand jury — “courage.”

“She’s in trouble legally if there’s a prosecutor with the courage…to prosecute her.”

And even if Mrs. Clinton is not prosecuted, will she suffer political damage because of the emailgate scandal? You can hear Judge Nap’s answer to that key question, as well as his take on Hillary Clinton’s possible criminal misconduct, by clicking on the video above.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Holder Reveals Plan To Stop Racial Profiling

Photo credit: http://news.uscourts.gov/

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently spoke at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, about the unveiling of Justice Department plans to end racial profiling.

Holder traveled to Atlanta in the first of a series of regional meetings around the country with community leaders and law enforcement. Barack Obama asked him to hold such meetings in the wake of the Ferguson decision.

Holder said:

In the coming days, I will announce updated Justice Department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement. This will institute rigorous new standards — and robust safeguards — to help end racial profiling, once and for all.  This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of fair and effective policing.

His meeting in Atlanta consisted of a round-table discussion with law enforcement and community leaders, followed by a public interfaith service and community forum.

President Obama made a request on Monday to federal agencies to ensure that the US is not building a “militarized culture” with its police forces. He also wants more police officers to be equpped with cameras. The spending on cameras comes as part of a $263 million package to help police improve community relations.

Holder has called civil rights a cornerstone of his time at the Justice Department and has advocated less harsh treatment for non-violent drug offenders.

He has discussed the importance of easing tensions between police departments and minority communities. The Justice Department has investigated roughly twenty “flawed” police agencies-including Ferguson- in the past five years.

What do you think? Will Holder’s plans to stop racial profiling stop injustice against minority communities? Or will they turn a blind eye toward crimes being committed by minorities?


h/t: patdollard.c0m

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Courts Give Green Light To Lawsuits That Could Finish ObamaCare

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

In finding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) constitutional, 5 justices of the Supreme Court literally ignored the statutory language of the law and the wishes of Congress. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts rewrote portions of the Act in order to bring its substance into line with his own politically motivated preferences.

In May, the IRS also ignored the will of Congress as expressed in the ACA. The law specifically states that subsidies and tax credits provided to certain ObamaCare enrollees may be awarded ONLY by “a governmental agency or nonprofit entity [ObamaCare exchange] that is established by a state.”(My emphasis) But this would prevent subsidies being awarded in the 33 states that have refused to build an ObamaCare exchange. Such a setback would effectively ruin the Affordable Care Act.

So the IRS decided to rescue its master’s namesake healthcare plan by presenting ObamaCare enrollees with $800 million worth of subsidies and tax credits even in states that have not built an exchange. After all, defenders of ObamaCare maintain that the whole affair simply represents  “…a minor drafting error [in the law] that courts will and should overlook.”

But not everyone agrees that the IRS may legally assume the lawmaking powers of Congress. In 2012, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed an amended suit, claiming that the IRS had no right to pass out subsidies contrary to the will of legislators. And as subsidies are not permitted in states with federally built exchanges, neither are the penalties–or taxes– the law imposes for noncompliance. In short, both the individual and employer mandates must be nullified.

In August, an Oklahoma district court ruled that 3 counts of Pruitt v. Sebelius may go forward. And as these represent the principal arguments of the action, should any of the 3 receive a favorable ruling, the status of ObamaCare exchanges will be placed in significant peril.

On October 22, a federal judge ruled that Halbig v. Sebelius–a suit whose content effectively mirrors that of Pruitt–may proceed. DC District Judge Paul Freidman “…rejected several Justice Department arguments on why the legal challenge should be tossed out of court.”

The existence of two lawsuits demanding the IRS follow the law rather than a political agenda gives opponents of ObamaCare 2 chances of upending the Affordable Care Act. Should an effective split decision occur, the Supreme Court would almost definitely hear the surviving case in its upcoming term.

Some 100 lawsuits filed against one or another facet of the Affordable Care Act are still making their way through the courts. Of the major “Act-ending” actions, Pruitt and Halbig probably represent the best hope of destroying ObamaCare as it now exists. As usual, we can only hope that an honest judge interested in maintaining the rule of law will make the ultimate ruling. If one can be found, ObamaCare’s days may be numbered.


Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Eric Holder Condemning Black Students To Failing Schools

Photo Credit: European Parliament Creative Commons

In the name of diversity, the modern left will stoop to almost any level to achieve its goal. A number of prominent Republicans are accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of curtailing the educational potential of black youth in Louisiana based on his desire to impose racial quotas.

About two dozen senators signed a letter demanding an explanation for the Department of Justice’s decision to force at least 570 students to stay in underperforming schools despite the fact they received scholarships to relocate to better facilities.

One of the Republican senators named in the letter, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, said Holder’s decision to “block any child from obtaining a good education is bad enough,” adding “doing so based solely on the children’s race is inexcusable.”

Hundreds of kids were told they could escape their failing schools following Hurricane Katrina, he explained. Nine out of every 10 students given a scholarship were minorities.

Since then, however, the Justice Department ruled that many of the black students told they could transfer must remain in their current school to maintain racial quotas.

According to the senators’ letter, if the area’s racial makeup were different, students would not be held hostage in substandard schools.

“These children are not statistics,” the letter states, requesting a response from Holder by Nov. 6.

For all their posturing on the issue of racial equality, it is clear progressives care only about the perception of such ideals as evidenced by a minority’s representation in any given community. Conservatives, on the other hand, want to foster success for everyone — regardless of race.

Unfortunately, the left’s lip service regarding race has been so distorted that many Americans identify it as genuine concern. That perception is now showing deep cracks, however, as evidenced in the senators’ pointed letter.

–Western Journalism staff writer

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

Photo Credit: European Parliament Creative Commons