The case primarily involves age discrimination but includes a sex discrimination claim.
The sex discrimination claim gave rise to a venue dispute involving where the lawsuit could be filed.
The federal government said the case had to be transferred from Arizona to Nevada because of a special venue provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination.
The plaintiff, an Arizona woman who is proceeding pro se, argued in court papers that the case should be moved to California, which would be more convenient for her and would not inconvenience the federal government. Alternatively, she asked to amend her complaint to drop the Title VII claim that gave rise to the venue dispute so the case could remain in Arizona.
The presiding judge was U.S. District Court Judge James A. Soto, 67, a Hispanic who was appointed to the bench in 2014 by former President Barack Obama. The job of a federal judge is to follow the law. Federal judges are paid more than $200,000 a year to put aside their personal bias and prejudice and to be fair.
It was not complicated. Federal courts have ruled that venue should be interpreted broadly in civil rights cases because Congress intended to afford citizens full and easy redress of grievances. Federal rules encourage judges to”freely” grant leave for a Plaintiff to amend her complaint, barring evidence of ill motive.
Judge Soto agreed that venue was proper in both California and Arizona (if Plaintiff dropped the conflicting sex discrimination claim). However, he ruled, without elaborating, that “judicial efficiency dictates that a transfer to the District of Nevada is in the interest of justice.” Continue reading “The Problem with Federal Judges Who Bully”
A recent poll has found that civility is worsening, promoting political gridlock, causing people to disengage from politics and leading to intolerance of free speech.
These were the findings of the 8th installment of Civility in America, an online poll conducted in January by KRC Research of Washington, DC, for two public relations firms, Weber Shandwick and Powell Tate. The survey was based on a representative sample of 1,481 U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, drawn from a national consumer panel.
According to the poll:
- 93% of the public agrees the nation has a civility problem, with 73% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats characterizing it as a “major” problem.
- Nearly three-quarters of the public agree the problem has gotten worse compared to a few years ago.
- Members of both parties generally agree that incivility is having or will have negative consequences for the U.S.
- 83% of the public says incivility leads to intolerance of free speech.
- 60% say incivility has led them to stop paying attention to political debates or conversations.
- 59% say incivility is deterring people from entering public service.
One of the sharpest areas of disagreement concerned Republican President Donald Trump – 64% of Republicans and 14% of Democrats believe that President Trump is personally civil. However, this finding echoes a similar finding in 2014 with respect to former Democratic President Barack Obama – 81 percent of Democrats said President Obama twas civil, compared to 14% of Republicans.
Last year, the poll found that politicians (64%) and the internet and social media (63%) share the blame for the rise of incivility. The news media (54%) was also blamed due instantaneous, nonstop media coverage that most (64%) believe makes incivility appear worse than it is.
* Note: The author, Patricia G. Barnes, J.D., offers civility and anti-harassment training to employers seeking to improve their workplace culture and boost their bottom line. Email firstname.lastname@example.org