Key Words 20-28 Flashcards
hate speech and symbols in WA
WA history and case law
hate groups in WA today
drafting exercise
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
extends First Amendment protection to criticism of an unnamed public official
Basic Idea: Public Debate over Public Speech is important; Can you ban hate speech?
Doe v. University of Michigan
campus speech codes
* False Compromise Take- Central Debate
o Minorities are offered the most protection from the First Amendment and should therefore be hesitant of 1st am restrictions
* 1st Am at the center of the argument that the Campus Codes do not fit within the broad 1st Am.
campus antiracism rules (Richard Delgado)
framing problem as a First Amendment problem or an equality problem
rules that limit speech (1st Amendment) v. protecting equality of minority personhood (13th and 14th Amendments)
campus antiracism rules (Richard Delgado) In Class Argument
o Equality in the 1st Am should be the starting point instead; burden shifts to the hate speaker
o Judge framing is key to determining the outcome
* Here:
o 1st Am. Is primary to the 14th Am. BUT
o Delgado: Should be the other way around
Confrontation Theory
o More reminders in the setting that there is an occasion that requires morality, then the folks will be more likely to not act racist (in the National Moral Character)
o Derrick Bell: Society is organized where Black and poor white folks are beefing to prevent the formation of radical racial solidarity
Presidential hate speech
Solutions: Voting & Lawsuits based on socially disruptive hate speech
Keep an eye out for a law review article
hate speech on the internet
reasons for difficulty to deter or control it
Law of Racial Thermodynamics
regulation of hate and racism
social contact theory
confrontation theory
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (2002)
National Labor Relations Board and Act of 1935 (NLRB)
would have awarded backpay to an undocumented immigrant but foreclosed by IRCA (see IRCA following)
* Cannot grant backpay to an undocumented individual working without permit due to conflicting with Immigration law (0 right to be here and therefore no right to compensation)
* Company insist that they fired the CL for union busting not for documentation status
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)
prohibits hiring of undocumented persons
establishes an employment verification system
Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co. (1973)
national origin discrimination
Title VII of Civil Rights Act failed to protect non-citizen employees (aliens/foreign born) from employment discrimination
Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co. (1973) In Class Notes
- P.721: laundry list of why Courts reject Latino employment discrimination
o Documentation status (not legally here then not legally working)
o Joking/take a joke
o Cannot prove that you were fired because of racial identity
o Spanish mono-lingualism - WHY is this not considered employment discrimination?
o Because the company’s policy against hiring noncitizens did not single her out based on national origin but only based on her lack of full citizenship
o Company hired Mexican Americans and Court was convinced by the Fed gov usage of only American Citizens
Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964-disparate impact and disparate treatment
- Factory worker and Farmhand solidarity movement
- 1986 Immigration Policy update made Espinoza void by adjusting the rules on undocumented labor
o Undocumented workforce cannot be paid a substandard wage - Proxies for Latino race have been unsuccessfully litigated
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
hostile workplace environment
Machado v. Goodman Manuf. Co.
extremely hostile workplace in one office (Texas), but favorable treatment in Miami
An employer will be subject to liability for maintaining a hostile work environment if an employee suffers discriminatory comments and behavior based on the employee’s national origin.-Quimbee
Garcia v. Spun Steak-English-Only workplace rules
- Prohibition of the Spanish language during work hours that was upheld by the 9th Cir.
- Title VII complaint; allows disparate impact of Outlaw of Spanish language claims when “credible”
- EEOC rejected the company’s claims; District Affirmed; Reversed by 9th Cir.
- Three Reasons
o Title VII does not violate Cultural expression
o No outright outlaw of inter-employee communication
No impact of the rule other than when the rule is violated
They brough it on themselves
o “English-Only policy did not create an environment hostile enough or creating inferiority”
accent discrimination- Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu (1990)
- If you do not hire someone because they have an accent then that is permitted unless you make it obvious that there is racial motivation beyond white incompetency
- Upheld a decision to refuse employment to a top-tier candidate due to their Filipino accent
BFOQ
bona fide occupational qualification
Title VII provides an exception to its prohibition of discrimination based on sex, religion, or national origin. That exception, called the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), recognizes that in some extremely rare instances a person’s sex, religion, or national origin may be reasonably necessary to carrying out a particular job function in the normal operation of an employer’s[2] business or enterprise.-Wikipedia
how to learn a foreign language via immersion
Go there; learn it
Rivera v. College of Du Page (2006)- hostile workplace discrimination
In Rivera v. College of DuPage, the Court granted summary judgment to an employer after finding that increased comments and warnings about a plaintiff’s job performance, obscene gestures and epithets, and ridicule for the amount of food the plaintiff ate “may have been stressful or hurtful to [plaintiff], . . . [but] would not have dissuaded a reasonable employee from making a complaint.” 445 F. Supp. 2d 924, 927 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
Cardona v. American Express Travel Related Services (1989)
intra-minority discrimination
Holding a person of Columbian ancestry had a § 1981 claim where he was discriminated against in favor of employees of Cuban ancestry
Kevin Johnson, Drivers Licenses and Undocumented Immigrants
talked about drivers’ licenses
did not talk about national identity card (Real ID)
Christopher Camerom (The Rakes of Wrath)
gas-powered leaf blowers in LA
talk to the people on the ground
Ernesto Hernandez-Lopez, LA’s Taco Truck War
when the city of Los Angeles and LA county used parking regulations to restrict “loncheros,” i.e. “taco trucks.” It describes the legal doctrine used by courts to invalidate these local restrictions. The California Vehicle code makes local food truck regulations illegal. Decades of court decisions affirm this. The paper sheds light, legal and cultural, on food truck debates, which will surely expand nationwide.
United Farm Workers movement
Filipinos in the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC)
National Farm Workers Association (NFWA)
Cesar Chavez (and Dolores Huerta)
Teamsters Union
grape and lettuce boycotts
national figures and celebrities weighed in
Emma Tenayuca (Texas organizer)
pecan shellers’ strikes
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021)
union organizers right of access to agricultural employers’ property
does this qualify as a taking?
In its decision, the Court held that a regulation made pursuant to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that required agricultural employers to allow labor organizers to regularly access their property for the purposes of union recruitment constituted a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the regulation may not be enforced unless “just compensation” is provided to the employers.-wikipedia