- Protected class designation as departure from viewpoint neutrality: D.C. council proposal would make support for (but not opposition to) abortion a discrimination-law protected category in health care employment [Abortion Provider Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2017, Bill 22-0571, via Katie Glenn, Washington Examiner]
- You’ve heard of space junk, here’s statutory junk [David Schoenbrod, Cato Regulation magazine]
- “The Regulation of Language”: “countries that adopt a planned order approach to language, also do so in their law, and similarly rely on a planned order approach in their economy” [Yehonatan Givati, Journal of Law and Economics forthcoming/SSRN]
- “You typically don’t think of pizza chains as being recipients of government bailouts, but in a sense, that’s what happened here.” [Dan Lewis, Now I Know, cheese promotion]
- Federal judge in Southern District of Mississippi wants race and gender hiring set-asides for legal work in receivership case, which is not fair to victims of Ponzi scheme whose interests are under care [Scott Greenfield]
- Trademark claims on “Ruby Tuesday,” who can hang a name on you? [Timothy Geigner, TechDirt]
Filed under: discrimination law, music and musicians, racial quotas, restaurants, trademarks, Washington D.C.
7 Comments
re: regulation of language. The French are an example of regulated language. Their dictionary is created by a gov agency whereas US is created by companies. It is interesting to note how much larger the English vocabulary is than the French and how upset they get at English invading their language (“le Internet” “le hamburger”–forgive me if I gender these wrong). Way back in the time of the Impressionists, the big art show was an official government activity and Renoir and friends got assigned to the top row 20 ft in the air where no one could see their work. That is why they formed their own gallery to show their work. Top down can never beat bottom-up for innovation in language or culture or technology.
The D.C. bill protects speech concerning abortion generally, not just one side of the issue. The protection for actions is one sided, however.
“The D.C. bill protects speech concerning abortion generally, not just one side of the issue.”
I’m not so sure. The bill is written a little weirdly. Part (c) applies to speech, but it only says that the employer may not prohibit the abortion-related speech if the speech is not part of the job. And it only seems to apply to people already employed.
Part (b) says the employer cannot take various adverse actions (like failing to hire, disciplining, paying less, etc.) “based on the fact that the health care professional is willing to participate in abortion or sterilization procedures”.
Based on this, it would seem that an health care employer could legally refuse to hire someone who has espoused anti-abortion views and is not willing to participate in abortions (even if their job has nothing whatsoever to do with those topics.) Part (c) doesn’t apply because the person is not yet an employee, and part (b) doesn’t apply because the person is *not* willing to participate in such an activity.
A good reminder to read more carefully before commenting. Looking more closely, I think you are right. Thank you.
In the Ruby Tuesday (restaurant chain) vs. Ruby Tuesdays (Australian band) situation, remember the WWF (World Wildlife Fund, animal rights organization) suit vs. the then-WWF (World Wrestling Federation, sports-entertainment organization): it’s hard for me to figure out how the suing organization can seriously think that the plaintiffs and defendants could be confused with each other, being in two completely different realms.
Because WWF and WWF are identical. You’d have to read further and figure out the subject matter of the article or whatever to know which is which. Before then — confusion.
Which one should have jurisdiction over boxing kangaroos?