A federal appeals court panel this week approved publicly disclosing records of unsubstantiated misconduct complaints lodged against law enforcement authorities in New York City.
Now let’s extend that rule to employers.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has long refused to disclose any details with respect to discrimination complaints filed against employers. The EEOC even hides from public view its decisions adjudicating those complaints. Many complaints in which the EEOC found probable cause the employer engaged in discrimination are quietly settled pursuant to mediation or conciliation agreements. No one is ever the wiser.
The EEOC’s secrecy rule permits discriminatory employers to avoid accountability for violating laws that ban discrimination based on age, race, sex, disability, religion, color, national origin, etc. Some nefarious corporations undoubtedly make it a cost of doing business to pay off discrimination victims.
If the public has a right to know when a police officer or firefighter is charged with misconduct, there is no justification for permitting employers who are charged with violating civil rights laws to hide behind confidentiality laws. At the other end of the spectrum, courts should stop the practice of sealing out-of-court discrimination settlements from public view.
Courts should stop sealing from the public view out-of-court settlements in discrimination cases.
Prospective job applicants have a right to make informed decisions about whether to take a job with a prospective employer that discriminates based on race or age. Members of the general public should be allowed to patronize only employers that treat their workers well.
Two things led to the “siege” of the Capitol building last week.
A group of thugs broke off from an otherwise peaceful protest of hundreds of thousands Trump supporters and forced their way into the Capitol building.
All that stood between the Jan. 6 protesters and the Capitol building were two dozen police officers positioned behind a small portable fence. They weren’t even wearing riot gear.
Two factors led to the “siege” but only one – the demonstration – has received any real attention.
If authorities had provided the same level of security seen at Black Lives Matter demonstrations last summer, the siege could not have occurred. By failing to provide adequate security, police effectively handed the thugs a key to the building.
President-Elect Joe Biden labelled the difference in security between the June 3 and Jan. 6 protests a symptom of race discrimination and the perception of a greater threat by black protesters. However, the police protected not only the Capitol building but also BLM, which would have suffered a public relations disaster had protesters had broken into the Capitol. It’s message, just like Trump’s concerns about voter fraud, would have been lost.
Without the police, BLM’s message about race discrimination – like Trump’s message about election fraud – might have been lost.
Some novelist somewhere is writing a book about how malevolent forces in a political party used a worldwide pandemic to throw a U.S. Presidential election in four swing states under its control.
When voters caught on, they went to the courts in these four states – lets say, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – and demanded justice. But the courts refused to act. And so did the state legislatures. (Skeptics said it was because they were controlled by the “Winning Party.)
The “Losing Party,” which seemingly was caught unawares, was ostensibly outraged that its Presidential candidate was robbed of a solid victory.
In truth, the leaders didn’t care much for their loud-mouth Presidential candidate. He was an outsider, always making trouble, and his alma mater is second-tier Ivy League. More importantly, the corruption in the four states didn’t affect down ballot voting and the “Losing Party” actually picked up many Congressional seats and grew much stronger. The leaders of the “Losing Party” stayed mostly quiet.
Point of No Return
At the point of no return, the hero of this tale, The Lone Star state of Texas, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. It argued the four rogue states had invalidated the will of voters of the state of Texas and the country as a whole. There was no other forum for redress, Texas argued.
Google, the massive search engine, may have swayed from 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.
This year it is estimated that Google swayed a bare minimum of 6 million votes to Democrat Joe Biden, enough to “elect” Biden.
This is conclusion of Dr. Robert Epstein, a senior research psychologist for the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and a former editor in chief of Psychology Today. He earned a Ph.D. at Harvard and has published 15 books and 300 scientific and mainstream articles.
You may never have heard of Epstein and his concerns that Google has run amuck because … Well, why would Google want to tell you that?
Epstein told Congress last summer that Google poses a “serious threat to Democracy” because it displays content to the public that is biased in favor of the candidate that Google supports. On Monday, Epstein said that Google continued its partisan campaign in the election, influencing both liberals and conservatives to support Biden and dump GOP President Donald Trump.
A group of open court advocates has appealed to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts to support bipartisan legislation to make federal court documents free and easily accessible to the public.
Currently, members of the public must pay ten cents a page, up to $3 a document, to view federal court records on-line, which deters people who cannot afford an attorney and have no choice but to represent themselves or abandon their rights.
The House Judiciary Committee last week in a bipartisan vote approved the Open Courts Act of 2020 to lift the paywall on the federal court database of case decisions and documents. The act, which includes a “pay-for” provision to support the service, would require the AO to modernize and make the database free to the public.
“Reform is often challenging, but it is imperative when the status quo limits access to justice. It is unjust to charge for court documents and place undue burdens on students, researchers, pro se litigants, and interested members of the public – not to mention the journalists who cover the courts.”
This was the message sent in a letter Tuesday to James C. Duff, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. It was signed by eight retired federal judges, Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack of the Michigan Supreme Court, Fix the Court (which released the letter) and other open government advocacy groups, several university law libraries and groups that represent the media.
If approved by Congress, the letter writers state, the “aging and difficult to navigate” federal court database would become “modern and user-friendly.”