they claim that they are not dismissing the case on the merits but on the fact that the plaintiff didn't follow the rules properly. In the case, she literally didn't check the correct boxes. Next they move to goalposts so high that no one can ever pass the bar. They rejected the case before a jury heard on procedural groups. They claim that her attorney in his initial motion didn't argue (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of his or her employment; and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take proper remedial action. Obviously, 4 is not true because she was fired. 5 the employer obviously knew that firing for race discrimination is illegal. There argument is that she was threatened with firing due to her race but that was insufficient to meet a race discrimination. In particular, they said
"On appeal, she has not challenged the district court's finding that she presented no evidence that her alleged harassment was based upon her race. As a result, she has waived any such argument. " ... "Thus, even if the threats of termination rose to a level sufficient to affect a “term, condition, or privilege” of Blakley's employment, Blakley still could not establish her prima facie claim of a hostile work environment based on her race."
That's the judges interpretation but they admit she argued she was "terminated her because of her race and in retaliation for her opposition to unlawful employment practices" So if the unlawful employment practices related to her race she has a care. Rather, the judges dismissed the case because they argue they weren't given sufficient info which is always a liars argument. The district judge could have dismissed the case due to lack of info without prejudice and allowed the case to proceed. It's this willingness to dismiss only plaintiff and not defense arguments on tiny technical grounds in case after case that has most experts concerned there is bias and certainly no justice. I'm not an expert but that is the argument and this is a classic example of that argument.
Experts argue that conservatives are using technical ground to dismiss plaintiff cases in only certain areas of law (e.g., civil rights cases) that have substantial merit. There is no evidence one way or the other that race discrimination occurred in their report. They dismissed the issue on technical grounds as they due in every case. Rather, there argument is in case after case that plaintiff lawyers are too stupid to properly follow the rules or require that plaintiffs are absurdly smart in the technical aspects while filing their case.
Most experts also agree that when these cases are not dismissed before going to trial, they are settled out of the court. That is, they're settled because the defense as lost. Thus, the legal system is no longer being tried by juries, it's being tried by judges and the judges are biased or more of these cases would go to trial.
Obviously, such a system favors wealthy corporations in other ways. If it becomes a trial over technicalities, a team of 100 defense lawyers can find a technical violation from plaintiff attorney that work solo or in small groups. In other words, it becomes a rigged system that doesn't pursue justice but technical perfection. Of course, anthropologists who have studies the law have for years claimed that's what has occurred in the legal profession. It's system that ignores outcomes and is only interested in the process. Anthropologist also point out that process is a false God that leads to inferior outcomes and that's been proven not just for law but in medicine and in a myriad of other professions.
You may disagree but science strongly backs my assertions in the last paragraph. As for the rest, we know that liberal judges are less willing to allow technical errors, process or rules to interfere with justice and many liberals view it as biased to allow technique to preclude a jury trial.
Others argue that such opinions are simply written off the defense arguments and are accepting defense claims regardless of what else is said. One can't really determine that without seeing both sides arguments. However, there are many examples in the literature where that has occurred literally including one appeals court case 5th circuit where the judges called the defense to ask why they ruled in the defense favor.
= new reply since forum marked as read
