The Supreme Court on Wednesday made a decision that has largely flown under the radar, but has big implications for employers who have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> 9-0 in favor of St. Louis Police Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, who sued the St. Louis Police Department (SLPD) after she was transferred from one department to another against her wishes. Muldrow worked for nearly 10 years in the SLPD’s specialized Intelligence Division, but in 2017, the new Intelligence Division commander requested she be transferred from the unit so she could be replaced with a man.
The request was approved and Muldrow was transferred to a position where she was now “supervising the day-to-day activities of neighborhood patrol officers,” instead of working in the Intelligence Division. While her rank and pay remained the same, her job changed and she lost the use of an unmarked take-home vehicle, as well as a more regular schedule where she had weekends off.
Muldrow sued, claiming she was discriminated against because she was a woman, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. A lower court found she had not been discriminated against because she did not show that she had been “significantly” harmed by the transfer, so Muldrow appealed, eventually getting her case before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court determined that there was no threshold for harm, and that someone alleging discrimination “does not have to show … that the harm incurred was significant. Or serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective.”
Typically, Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” when it comes to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1713611654298000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3YPWSe9w05H79aayRzLC1M">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
With the Supreme Court decision stating that an employee doesn’t have to show “significant” harm, many have taken the new ruling to mean it will be easier for women and minorities to sue based on alleged discrimination.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for example, <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-delivers-big-win-for-workplace-equality-in-muldrow-v-city-of-st-louis-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">touted</a> the ruling as “a huge victory for workers and workplace equality.”
But some conservatives have noted that this ruling could make it easier to sue employers who have DEI programs that favor women and minorities.
The Daily Signal <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/04/17/supreme-court-just-made-easier-sue-employers-dei-policies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that it’s “fashionable for corporate employers to create race- and sex-based employment conditions and privileges as part of their DEI initiatives.” The outlet pointed to LinkedIn’s “employee resource groups,” which provide mentoring and training programs for “systemically marginalized” groups. The outlet suggests that these programs would fall under the “privileges of employment,” mentioned under Title VII, and that the additional pay given to leaders of these groups would count as “compensation” under the law.
The ACLU pushed back on this notion, with Ming-Qi Chu, the deputy director of the organization’s Women’s Rights Project, dismissing the idea as “fearmongering.”
“The fearmongering of DEI opponents has no basis in law and fundamentally misunderstands how most DEI programs work. The purpose of DEI and other remedial workplace programs is to improve the process by which employment decisions are made and close the gap in opportunities among workers. They do not disadvantage any particular worker. This is why they have long been held lawful. These scare-tactics are trying to chill employers’ commitment and investment in expanding workplace opportunity. We won’t let them,” she said in the ACLU’s statement regarding the Supreme Court decision.

Diversity Equity And Inclusion

Supreme Court Makes It Easier To Sue Employers Over DEI Claims

Civil Rights

Discrimination

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Supreme Court

U.S.

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/south-carolina" target="_blank" rel="noopener">South Carolina</a> House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday that would prohibit public universities from making hiring or promotion decisions based on diversity, equity, and inclusion principles or political ideology.
The <a href="https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/prever/4289_20240327.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bill</a>, which passed 84-30 with opposition from Democrats and support from Republicans, also protects the free speech of both students and staff at public universities and requires universities to report on how much money they spend on DEI initiatives. Conservative members of the South Carolina legislature have <a href="https://scdailygazette.com/2024/03/28/sc-house-gop-passes-bill-banning-dei-in-college-hiring-firing-and-admission/#:~:text=The%20bill%20bars%20discriminating%20against,and%20how%20they%20were%20resolved." target="_blank" rel="noopener">previously pushed</a> to strip all DEI-related funding from public universities. 
“In a decisive move, SC House Republicans have passed H.4289, signaling a clear stance against DEI ideology influencing college admissions and employment decisions,” the South Carolina House Republican Caucus <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SCHouseGOP/posts/pfbid0AN73SD5kbSGmQcyLq1Ky4DsFzsD1aH3sqym8q3tdZnhxcWujyCdtVgouqww8DF9Al">said</a> in a statement. “This landmark legislation ensures no diversity pledges can dictate admissions or job outcomes, halts mandatory diversity training, and upholds the unassailable right to free speech. It&#8217;s a bold affirmation of our commitment to equality and academic freedom, safeguarding our institutions against bias and promoting fairness in line with federal laws and standards.”
“A public institution of higher learning shall not infringe on a student, faculty member, or employee&#8217;s First Amendment right to free speech,” <a href="https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/prever/4289_20240327.htm">the bill</a> says. “A public institution of higher learning shall not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint discrimination.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1711722593099000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2BYobdhGnzBnBpziY8U6Zu">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
During debate on the measure, state Republican Rep. Adam Morgan said that taxpayer money should not be used to push a politicized worldview on students. 
“We’re asking a question of what our tax dollars should be spent on, because what we spend our money on reflects our values,” he <a href="https://scdailygazette.com/2024/03/28/sc-house-gop-passes-bill-banning-dei-in-college-hiring-firing-and-admission/#:~:text=The%20bill%20bars%20discriminating%20against,and%20how%20they%20were%20resolved." target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
South Carolina House Democrats <a href="https://twitter.com/SCHouseDems/status/1773122593895108611?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1773122593895108611%7Ctwgr%5Ec1acd923c809e19fd0862d806d55bb7f609b916d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews4.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fsouth-carolina-house-advances-controversial-anti-dei-bill-in-party-line-vote-south-carolina-democrat-republican-diversity-equity-inclusion-2024" target="_blank" rel="noopener">claimed</a> the bill is part of a push toward a “far right effort to make our college campuses less diverse, less equitable, and less inclusive.”
The measure now heads to the Senate for consideration where Republicans hold 30 seats and Democrats have 15. 
Other states, like Florida and Alabama, have passed more wide-ranging measures cracking down on DEI. Last week, Republican Alabama Governor Kay Ivey <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/alabama-governor-signs-law-to-ban-dei-programs-at-public-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">signed</a> a law that bans state funding of DEI programs at state agencies and public universities.

South Carolina State House

South Carolina House Passes Bill To Keep Universities From Hiring Based On DEI Principles

Free Speech

Politics

South Carolina

A proposed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/tennessee" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tennessee</a> bill that would prevent banks from discriminating against people based on their political or religious views advanced in the state House on Tuesday amid national concerns that financial institutions are targeting conservatives. 
The Republican-backed bill advanced in the House’s Subcommittee on Banking and Consumer Affairs by a 5-1 vote along partisan lines. 
“The trend of freezing bank accounts based on religious or political beliefs is deeply worrying to me,” Rep. Jason Zachary (R-Knoxville), the bill’s sponsor, said. “We will put a stop to this dangerous practice in Tennessee because having to self-police speech for fear of being denied financial services is not representative of our state’s values. Tennessee Republicans will continue protecting the right of citizens to freely express their convictions.”
The proposal, <a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2100" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2100</a>, would prohibit financial institutions from denying or canceling services to people based on a person’s speech, opinions, and affiliations, as well as a person’s religious beliefs, exercises, and affiliations. It would create an amendment to Tennessee’s consumer protection laws and would not impact quantitative factors banks already take into account. A previous version of the proposal included insurance companies, but the bill was amended to remove those provisions. 
Zachary <a href="https://tnga.granicus.com/player/clip/29797?view_id=703&amp;redirect=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> before the subcommittee that the state attorney general’s office was currently dealing with cases of customers who have had their banking restricted in the state. 
“This legislation is extremely important to the well-being of Tennesseans and this puts this under the Consumer Protection Act and ensures that our Tennesseans are not discriminated against,” he said. “And if the banks aren’t doing this, which we’ve heard over and over again, ‘we’re not doing this,’ then they’re not going to have any problem with the bill.”
On Tuesday, Chris Lee of the National Shooting Sports Foundation and FirstBank CEO Chris Holmes gave additional testimony. 
Lee testified in support of the bill, pointing to moves by some financial institutions to target the firearm industry. Lee pointed to gun <a href="https://www.citigroup.com/global/news/perspective/2018/announcing-our-us-commercial-firearms-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">policies</a> rolled out by Citigroup in 2018 that refused to work with partners who sold guns to people under the age of 21 or sold high-capacity magazines and bump stocks. Citigroup attempted to get other financial institutions to join but failed to rally any additional support. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1709731418042000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3Rpfa0a-gECGBBfyE_tF46">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Holmes, who opposes the bill, said it would lead to burdensome regulations and could mean that banks would be required to work with businesses involved in pornography or marijuana. Zachary said that banks could still follow policies about not doing business with such entities and that his bill only applies to banks with $100 billion in assets or more. 
The bill, supported by groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom and the National Committee for Religious Freedom, now moves on to the House Commerce Committee.
The proposal comes as congressional lawmakers look into whether federal law enforcement pressured financial institutions to help them snoop on the financial transactions of supporters of former President Donald Trump and people who had visited outdoor stores like Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shops.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/religious-liberty-advocates-warn-tennessee-lawmakers-about-dangers-of-politically-motivated-de-banking" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Religious Liberty Advocates Warn Tennessee Lawmakers About Dangers Of Politically Motivated ‘De-Banking’</a>

Sunset Behind the Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville, Tennessee

Bill To Protect Customers From De-Banking For Religious, Political Reasons Advances In Tennessee

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Banking

Citigroup

General

Tennessee

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/television">CBS Studios</a> and its parent company, Paramount, are being sued by an employee who claims he was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/discrimination">discriminated</a> against for being a heterosexual white male. 
Brian Beneker, a script coordinator for the drama series “SEAL Team,” filed a lawsuit in California federal court Wednesday, per <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/cbs-studios-paramount-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit-racial-quotas-1235842493/">The Hollywood Reporter</a>. 
The studio employee alleged that he was repeatedly denied a staff writer job due to the company’s “illegal policy of race and sex balancing,” which promoted hiring “less qualified applicants who were members of more <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-dei">preferred groups</a>.” Beneker specifically stated in the document that women, minorities, and LGTBQ individuals were given preferential consideration for open positions.
The CBS employee is seeking $500,000 in damages and is requesting a court order to become a full-time producer on the series to help combat future discriminatory practices, the THR report noted.
Beneker is represented by the America First Legal Foundation. The conservative legal group was founded by Stephen Miller, a White House policy adviser under the Trump administration. This is the first major lawsuit that America First is representing against an entertainment industry company.
The lawsuit states that Beneker worked as a script coordinator for “SEAL Team” since 2017 and has written several episodes. He alleges that he was passed over for staff writer positions on multiple occasions while members of minority groups were chosen despite not being as qualified for the roles, in his estimation.
Beneker claims he asked a showrunner in 2019 why one person was chosen instead of him for an open position. He claims that person said it was because he “did not check any diversity boxes.” Despite being told he’d be the next pick, Beneker said CBS hired six more women as writers. 
Beneker said this happened on more than one occasion.
“During Season 6, (in approximately May of 2022), two female writer’s assistants, without any writing credits, were hired as staff writers,” the lawsuit says. “The first of these two hires was black. The second identified as lesbian.”
Beneker said these initiatives have “created a situation where heterosexual, white men need ‘extra’ qualifications (including military experience or previous writing credits) to be hired as staff writers when compared to their nonwhite, LGBTQ, or female peers.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The employee blamed the hiring practice on publicly stated diversity quotas which CBS sought to meet. CEO of CBS Entertainment Group George Cheeks reportedly said in 2022 that he set a goal of all writers&#8217; rooms being staffed by at least 40% minority group members. He further stated that 17 out of 21 shows met those goals for the 2021-2022 season.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of the Supreme Court decision last June, which found that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina could not use <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/advocates-hail-scotus-decision-scrapping-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions">race-based criteria</a> for admissions.

CBS Sued By ‘SEAL Team’ Writer Who Claims ‘Heterosexual, White Men Need Extra Qualifications’

CBS Sued By 'SEAL Team' Writer Who Claims 'Heterosexual, White Men Need Extra Qualifications'

Courts

Entertainment

Hollywood

Lawsuit

Paramount

NASHVILLE — <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/tennessee" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tennessee</a> lawmakers heard on Tuesday the accounts of religious groups that had lost access to their bank accounts for what they suspect to be ideological reasons.
One group, the National Committee for Religious Freedom, had only had a bank account open with JPMorgan Chase for several weeks before the organization’s head and former Kansas Governor Sam Brownback attempted to make a deposit only to be told the account no longer existed. The group, which was created to promote religious liberty in the United States, was informed that they had not returned paperwork before a 60 day deadline even though the account was terminated after around three weeks, according to senior advisor Matt Goddard.
Goddard said that they attempted multiple times to understand why their account had been discontinued only to be given multiple confusing explanations. They soon became suspicious that they had been victims of de-banking, a term used to describe people losing access to financial services for ideological reasons.
The National Committee for Religious Freedom was one of the groups warning about de-banking during testimony on Tuesday in support of a proposed Tennessee bill that would prevent banks from discriminating against people based on their political or religious views. The group testified in front of the Tennessee House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Banking and Consumer Affairs at the Cordell Hull Building in Nashville.
“We were founded in 2022 by Sam Brownback, a former governor, U.S. senator, and U.S. ambassador,” Goddard said at a press conference after the hearing. “The reason I share that with you is that if he can be de-banked by Chase Bank, anybody can be de-banked by Chase Bank.”
The proposed bill, <a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2100" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2100</a>, would block financial institutions and insurance companies from denying or canceling services to people based on a person&#8217;s speech, opinions, and affiliations, as well as a person’s religious beliefs, exercises, and affiliations. The bill would create an amendment to Tennessee’s consumer protection laws and would not impact quantitative factors banks already take into account.
Concerns over de-banking have emerged in recent years after the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of truckers protesting his strident vaccine mandate and revelations that banks were asked to flag transactions of Trump supporters and people shopping at outdoor stores, such as Bass Pro Shop.
Also highlighted in the hearing was the case of the Memphis-based Indigenous Advance Ministries, a Christian nonprofit that helps the impoverished in Uganda. The organization filed a consumer complaint after its account was closed by Bank of America. Emails from Bank of America revealed that it closed the account because it “no longer aligns with the bank’s risk tolerance,” <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/bank-america-boots-charity-serving-impoverished-ugandans-under-vague-risk-tolerance">according</a> to the Alliance Defending Freedom. The sudden closure of Indigenous Advance&#8217;s account came after it had been a customer for roughly eight years with Bank of America and the move greatly impacted its mission, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
The Tennessee bill, sponsored by Rep. Jason Zachary (R-Knoxville) in the House and Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R-Franklin), would also prohibit banks from keeping a social credit score that factors in things like owning a gun, working in the firearm industry, working in the oil or timber industry, or a person&#8217;s support for immigration laws being enforced.
“The legislation that we presented today is about protecting Tennesseans,” Zachary said. “It’s a consumer protection act to ensure that Tennesseans are not de-banked for non-financial reasons.”
Zachary told The Daily Wire that the insurance component of the legislation was “proactive” and intended to prevent discrimination based on political speech or religious belief.
The bill was opposed by the Tennessee Bankers Association, which said that it is addressing a problem that doesn’t exist. Representatives from the association also said that federal discrimination law would protect consumers already.
The House committee ran out of time to vote on advancing the bill and is expected to vote next week about moving it past committee.
Similar measures to protect consumers from financial discrimination have been proposed this year in Florida and Iowa.

JP Morgan Chase Profits Jump 47 Percent

Religious Liberty Advocates Warn Tennessee Lawmakers About Dangers Of Politically Motivated ‘De-Banking’

Religious Liberty Advocates Warn Tennessee Lawmakers About Dangers Of Politically Motivated 'De-Banking'

Economy

Nashville

Religious Freedom

Religious Liberty

The classic musical film “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/movies">Mary Poppins</a>” has been changed to a “PG” rating in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/united-kingdom">United Kingdom</a> due to perceived “discriminatory language.”
The British Board of Film Classification changed the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/disney">Disney</a> movie&#8217;s rating from U, meaning universal (equivalent to a G rating in the U.S.), to PG, meaning parental guidance is suggested.
&#8220;Mary Poppins&#8221; has &#8220;two uses of the discriminatory term &#8216;hottentots,'&#8221; a BBFC spokesperson told <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2024/02/27/mary-poppins-rating-increased-discriminatory-language/72755548007/">USA TODAY</a> of the change, noting how colonizers of South Africa used the term to refer to the indigenous Khoekhoe people. It’s now considered a racial slur.
&#8220;While &#8216;Mary Poppins&#8217; has a historical context, the use of discriminatory language is not condemned, and ultimately exceeds our guidelines for acceptable language at U,&#8221; the spokesperson said of the decision. &#8220;We therefore classified the film PG for <a href="https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/mary-poppins-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc0ymzg1mju">discriminatory language</a>.&#8221;
In “Mary Poppins,” the character Admiral Boom (Reginald Owen) sees the soot-covered faces of the chimney sweeps and uses the term to describe them. Admiral Boom also asks Michael (Matthew Garber) if he plans to go on an adventure to &#8220;defeat hottentots.&#8221;
The change comes as the movie is about to be re-released in the U.K. for its 60th anniversary, the outlet noted.
&#8220;We understand from our racism and discrimination research, and recent classification guidelines research, that a key concern for people, parents in particular, is the potential to expose children to discriminatory language or behavior which they may find distressing or repeat without realizing the potential offense,” the BBFC spokesperson added.
So far, this change only affects “Mary Poppins” in the U.K. The film still has a G rating in the United States.
Several older Disney films in recent years have been given disclaimers due to speech and scenes that the studio deemed potentially offensive.
For example, a disclaimer was added to the 1953 animated film “Peter Pan.” Disney+ viewers were warned that some scenes contain “negative depictions” and “mistreatment of people or cultures.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now. Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together,” the 12-second <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/disney-adds-warnings-for-racist-content-to-peter-pan-dumbo-other-classic-films">disclaimer says</a>. 
Other films with similar warnings include “Dumbo” (1941), “Peter Pan” (1953), “Swiss Family Robinson” (1960), and “The Aristocats” (1970).

Mary Poppins

Mary Poppins Slapped With ‘PG’ Rating In U.K. Due To ‘Discriminatory Language’

Mary Poppins Slapped With 'PG' Rating In U.K. Due To 'Discriminatory Language'

Movies

Racism

United Kingdom

World

French vaccine manufacturer Sanofi was hit with a federal civil rights complaint alleging racial and sex discrimination in its hiring practices by America First Legal, a <a href="https://aflegal.org/about/">non-profit organization</a> that seeks to end discrimination in corporate America.
The <a href="https://media.aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/02201510/Sanofi-EEOC-Complaint-01022024-1.pdf?_ga=2.76162773.1169573421.1704230908-2133190032.1704230908">complaint</a> comes in the wake of an exposé from James O’Keefe, who posted a video of Sanofi Senior Vice President Carole Huntsman outlining the company’s plans for “internal promotions and external hiring.” Huntsman explained that “one in five hires needs to be a black employee” and “one in ten has to be a Latinx employee” in order to meet the company’s goals.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
DEI LEAK: Executives from Pharma company Sanofi caught on leaked zoom call discussing discriminatory hiring practices:
Carole Huntsman, Former Senior VP:
“One in five hires NEEDS to be a black employee for us to meet our goals” …
“One in ten HAS to be a Latinx employee.”… <a href="https://t.co/BgHzHNDa4Q">pic.twitter.com/BgHzHNDa4Q</a>
&mdash; James O&#39;Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) <a href="https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1737986459007590636?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 22, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“The evidence strongly suggests Sanofi’s management has created a culture of systemic racism,” America First Legal <a href="https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-slams-french-big-pharma-vaccine-maker-sanofi-for-racial-discrimination-files-federal-civil-rights-complaints/">contended</a>, also pointing to Sanofi’s “Diverse Slate Policy,” which required talent acquisition teams to find “a minimum of one person of color and one female in each slate presented to a hiring leader” as part of a plan to achieve “at least 50% diverse representation of 25% POC and 25% female representation.”
Sanofi also outlined its demographic goals for 2025, stating that it intends to have “women representing 40% of executives and 50% of senior leadership” across the globe, also aiming for “37% people of color representation” in the United States.
Progress towards these goals even affected the compensation of those employed by Sanofi, with CEO Paul Hudson’s compensation in 2022 being influenced by the fact that the “number of women recruited to positions at level 5 and above” was “slightly below target.”
Sanofi also applied racial and sex quotas to its supplier diversity program, America First Legal asserts, pointing out that the company set a goal of reaching a &#8220;total diversity spend of 1.5 billion Euros by 2025.”
“Many in the business world have lost their minds. Instead of valuing individuals as individuals and selecting personnel for hiring and promotion based on merit, radical advocates have convinced otherwise intelligent people in corporate America that the only thing that matters is a person’s skin color or sex,” America First Legal Vice President and General Counsel Gene Hamilton remarked. “Unsurprisingly, these race-based employment practices are illegal, and we are wholly committed to ensuring that they end everywhere that we find them.”

Sanofi Building

Vaccine Manufacturer Hit With Federal Complaint Over Racial, Sex Discrimination

Racial Discrimination

A lawsuit has been filed against the State Bar of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/wisconsin" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wisconsin</a> over “discriminatory” DEI practices, including offering up exclusive internship opportunities to racial and sexual minorities. 
According to the <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/DCP-Complaint-signed.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a>, filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) on behalf of attorney Daniel Suhr, the state bar&#8217;s “Diversity Clerkship Program” violates the 14th Amendment by discriminating against hundreds of Wisconsin attorneys. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 
“When the government discriminates based on race, it sows more division in our country and violates the Constitution in the process. WILL is standing up against  discrimination and holding the State Bar accountable to the rights of its due-paying members,” WILL Associate Counsel Skylar Croy said. 
The state bar <a href="https://www.wisbar.org/aboutus/forlawstudents/Pages/Diversity-Program.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">describes</a> the program as a 10-week paid internship for a first-year law student from Marquette University Law School or the University of Wisconsin Law School. The bar says that students must come from “backgrounds that have been historically excluded from the legal field​​ who are in good standing.”
Suhr said that internships should be open for all students, regardless of background. 
“Internships are competitive — as they should be. But when one group is  given preferential treatment over the other to apply for these programs, the programs lose competitiveness  and hurt all Americans. This also goes against my beliefs entirely. The State Bar should do better and expand  these opportunities to all Wisconsin law students,” he said. 
The lawsuit says that the “Diversity Clerkship Program” should not exist, but says that at a minimum that dues from members of the bar should not be used to fund the internship. The suits says that the program violates the equal protection rights of law students.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1702741302552000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0j7iIgqNi0bR5AgQ4rgPM4">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“For as long as the Bar is engaged in activities that are not germane to either regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services, compelled membership is unconstitutional,” the lawsuit says. 
Suhr also says that his free speech rights have been violated through various political statements made by the bar, <a href="https://www.wisbar.org/aboutus/diversity/Pages/Racial-Equity.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">including</a> claims that, “Black Americans suffer from police brutality and crippling fear caused by systemic racism and implicit bias tha​​​​t is ingrained in our legal system.”
WILL wants the court to block the bar from keeping the program in place and to rule that Suhr’s free speech and free association rights have been violated.

Flag of the US State of Wisconsin

Lawsuit Filed Against Wisconsin State Bar Over ‘Discriminatory’ Diversity Internship

Minorities

Wisconsin

Students for Fair Admissions, the group that brought the lawsuit to the Supreme Court that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-on-affirmative-action-at-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ended affirmative action</a> for admissions at colleges, is now targeting West Point military academy, filing a lawsuit asserting the academy discriminates against white applicants.
The SCOTUS ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts that ended affirmative action exempted military academies; Roberts wrote a footnote that military academies had “potentially distinct interests.”
“For most of its history, West Point has evaluated cadets based on merit and achievement,” the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/1ab01e56-458f-4df8-94f4-338d720fed51.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_18" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> — filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — notes. “For good reasons: America’s enemies do not fight differently based on the race of the commanding officer opposing them, soldiers must follow orders without regard to the skin color of those giving them, and battlefield realities apply equally to all soldiers regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin.”
After pointing out that President Harry Truman desegregated the military, the lawsuit charges, “Over the past few decades, however, West Point has strayed from that approach. Instead of admitting future cadets based on objective metrics and leadership potential, West Point focuses on race. In fact, it openly publishes its racial composition ‘goals,’ and its director of admissions brags that race is wholly determinative for hundreds if not thousands of applicants.”
“West Point has no justification for using race-based admissions,” the lawsuit declares. “Those admissions are unconstitutional for all other public institutions of higher education.”
The lawsuit mentions two prospective candidates for West Point, both white, who joined Students for Fair Admissions in the lawsuit because they supports its mission. Both have excellent grade point averages, are in excellent physical condition, have family members who served in the military, and believe it would be an honor to serve their country.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1687949742079000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0ITvohyycD4HRoKM4oQHK4">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“Unless West Point is ordered to stop using race as a factor in admissions, his race will prevent him from competing for admission on an equal footing,” the lawsuit states of each candidate, adding that each preferred to remain pseudonymous, “because he is a high-school student, and he fears reprisal from West Point and others if his participation in this litigation becomes public.”
President Joe Biden has urged the military to continue filtering applications by race.

COLLEGE FOOTBALL: SEP 08 Liberty at Army

Group That Ended Affirmative Action Admissions At Colleges Sues West Point, Claims Discrimination Against Whites

Department of Defense

West Point

A Christian social worker in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/united-kingdom">U.K.</a> is taking legal action after his job offer was rescinded for his Christian views of sexuality and marriage.
Felix Ngole was offered his “dream job” as a mental health support worker at Touchstone Support Leeds, a charity <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/services/service-directory/touchstone/N10499434">partnered</a> with the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS), but weeks later, the company <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12278659/Christian-job-offer-rescinded-company-learns-victory-free-speech-case.html">rescinded</a> the offer when it found out about his Christian beliefs and past victory in a religious liberty case.
Several weeks after receiving his acceptance letter, he received an email from Touchstone Deputy CEO Kathryn Hart, saying he was not fit for the position because the company had “identified some significant areas and concerns” that did not “align with Touchstone Leeds’ ethos and values.” 
“In particular, we can see that you have very strong views against homosexuality and same-sex marriage, which completely go against the views of Touchstone, an organisation committed to actively promoting and supporting LGBTQ+ rights,” Hart continued.
She said that she would reconsider if he would embrace Touchstone’s values, including “the promotion of homosexual rights.”
The father of three was then invited to a meeting with Hart and the company’s operations director, Dave Pickard, who questioned him intensely about his beliefs.
Ngole, who fled persecution in Cameroon, compared the questioning to interrogations he experienced in his home country. “They called it a discussion but it felt like I was being interrogated back in Cameroon,” he said. “Every question had an LGBT slant. … I think they were concerned that employing me could risk their Stonewall ranking.”
&#8220;What I cannot do, and you cannot reasonably expect me to do without yourselves being discriminatory, is make my participation in the &#8216;promotion of homosexual rights&#8217; a condition of my employment,&#8221; Ngole responded in the meeting, assuring them he would not discriminate against anyone. 
A week after the meeting, he received an email from the company officially rescinding his job offer, stating that his beliefs would be “upsetting and offensive” to their patients and would “exacerbate … [their] anxiety and depression.”
Touchstone Support <a href="https://touchstonesupport.org.uk/about-us/senior-leadership-team/">boasts</a> its “Top 100 LGBTQ+ Inclusive Employer” ranking and “Gold” award from the controversial organization <a href="https://www.stonewall.org.uk/">Stonewall</a>, which <a href="https://www.stonewall.org.uk/join-diversity-champions-programme">promotes</a> left-wing LGBTQ agenda items in workplaces. The company’s logo even dons the Pride and transgender flags’ colors.
Ngole is now pursuing legal action against the organization under the U.K. Equality Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. 
Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, which is representing Ngole, said, “Telling an employee they must &#8217;embrace and promote&#8217; homosexuality as a condition of employment sets a dark and troubling precedent. If left unchallenged it would see Christians who manifest their beliefs barred from working in the NHS.”
The Centre <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/christian-social-worker-takes-legal-action-job-withdrawn-told-embrace-promote-lgbt-rights">said</a> that he was “the best performing candidate in interview, gaining the highest marks of any candidate on an equality and diversity assessment.”
Religious discrimination is not new for Ngole, as he won a case against the University of Sheffield, which had expelled him for his Christian beliefs. In 2016, the university expelled him for quoting Bible verses about homosexuality in a Facebook discussion and told him not to express his views, even in church, according to <a href="https://www2.cbn.com/news/world/british-court-upholds-right-christians-freely-express-their-faith">CBN News</a>. 
The U.K. Court of Appeal rebuked the university in a landmark free speech victory, saying, “The mere expression of religious views about sin does not necessarily connote discrimination.&#8221; The Court of Appeal also found that Ngole would “never discriminate against anyone” because of his religious views. His victory in the case played a role in the offer being rescinded, according to The Daily Mail.
This type of discrimination is on the rise in the U.K., <a href="https://www2.cbn.com/news/world/christian-social-worker-uk-denied-job-refusing-pledge-allegiance-lgbt-flag">according</a> to Williams. &#8220;What we see here is the confident totalitarianism of an organization that has been captured by Stonewall and will do anything to keep their Stonewall ranking as high as possible,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Viewpoint discrimination is escalating in the UK at an alarming rate &#8230; Anyone who does not comply and celebrate LGBT ideology must become a &#8216;non-person.'&#8221;
Viewpoint discrimination is a rising concern for British politicians. As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-k-bank-refuses-to-open-account-for-conservative-parent-group-report">reported</a>, U.K. banks backed by the Stonewall group have denied or shut individuals’ accounts for their political views or positions. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12258933/Rishi-Sunak-issues-warning-banks-blacklisting-customers-controversial-views.html">vowed</a> to investigate such discrimination.

Felix Ngole court case

Christian Social Worker Sues After Losing Job Offer, Told He Must ‘Embrace And Promote Homosexual Rights’

Christian Social Worker Sues After Losing Job Offer, Told He Must 'Embrace And Promote Homosexual Rights'

LGBT

Same-Sex Marriage

Social Issues

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity will now be a punishable offense in the state of Michigan. 
On Wednesday, the Michigan legislature made LGBTQ+ discrimination a civil rights violation through <a href="https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2023-SEBS-0004.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate Bill 4</a> and its companion legislation, <a href="https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billengrossed/House/pdf/2023-HEBH-4003.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Bill 4003</a>. The legislation now heads to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for passage, who will likely sign it. Whitmer praised the legislation’s passage in a statement and on social media; the governor has consistently advocated throughout her administration for expanding LGBTQ+ protections to include prohibitions on any discriminatory behavior. 
“[This legislation] will help ensure Michiganders can’t be fired from their job or evicted from their home based on who they love or how they identify,” stated Whitmer. “This is about doing the right thing, and it is just good economics. Bigotry is bad for business, and ensuring these protections will build on our reputation as a beacon of opportunity where anyone can succeed.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
No one should be fired from their job or evicted from their home because of who they are. For years, I’ve been calling for changes to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to strengthen legal protections for the LGBTQ+ community.
I&#39;m proud that we’re finally getting it done.
&mdash; Gretchen Whitmer (@gretchenwhitmer) <a href="https://twitter.com/gretchenwhitmer/status/1633633132451618820?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 9, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Under <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(notpaa2cnzcypfwgnuzea2vy))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&amp;objectname=mcl-37-2605" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michigan law</a>, punishments for civil rights violations may include civil fines ranging from $10,000 for the first violation to $50,000 for two or more violations within a seven-year period, as well as any other relief the state’s civil rights commission deems appropriate. 
The legislation originated with Senate President Pro Tempore Jeremy Moss (D-LD07).
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Celebrating <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/equality?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#equality</a> as the Michigan House passes my bill to include <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LGBTQ?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LGBTQ</a> protections in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and sends it to <a href="https://twitter.com/GovWhitmer?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GovWhitmer</a> to be signed into law!
What a moment. <a href="https://t.co/SEWdqCs4ep">pic.twitter.com/SEWdqCs4ep</a>
&mdash; Senator Jeremy Moss (@JeremyAllenMoss) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyAllenMoss/status/1633573737042788359?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Moss’ bill passed the Senate 23-15 last Wednesday; the House version passed 64-45 on Wednesday. Moss and fellow Senate Democrats resisted amendments that attempted to afford greater religious protections due to concerns that the bill would result in the punishment of people upholding their religious beliefs. Moss <a href="https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dz4s5q42lh4lr3htqtwtmell))/documents/2023-2024/Journal/Senate/pdf/2023-SJ-03-01-021.pdf">claimed</a> that the expansion wouldn’t result in people being forced to act against their religious beliefs.
“Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the act will not compel a church to marry an LGBTQ couple,” stated Moss. “But adherents of a religion are required to follow neutral, generally-applicable laws.”
However, Moss then implied that not all interpretations or claims of religious beliefs should be considered valid. 
“Clearly some of you still want to use one verse in Leviticus to discriminate against LGBTQ people. But if you were truly sincere, a true sincere adherent to Leviticus, and you let it define how you treat other people, let it instead be the verse that rabbi Akiva, the ancient Jewish scholar and chief of the sages said was the greatest principle of the Torah [&#8230;] love thy neighbor as thyself, that it is forbidden to do others what you would not want done to yourself. Treat others how you would want to be treated. I studied the Torah in Hebrew school; you’re not going to challenge me on the Old Testament. Just the fact that some of you can forget that simple principle, that’s what some might call sacrilegious.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
For far too long, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LGBTQ?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LGBTQ</a> Michiganders could not seek justice after enduring discrimination because we were excluded from our state’s civil rights act.
In a historic vote today, the Michigan Senate passed my bill to expand the act and liberate our community. 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ <a href="https://t.co/heEhTktKe9">pic.twitter.com/heEhTktKe9</a>
&mdash; Senator Jeremy Moss (@JeremyAllenMoss) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyAllenMoss/status/1631007146421657600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 1, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The New Testament definition of love includes the stipulation that love doesn’t rejoice in “unrighteousness,” or “wrongdoing” – meaning, sin. It also identifies homosexual behavior as sinful in the apostles’ writings, specifically in Romans. 
<a class="c-link" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Court rulings stand in conflict with Moss’ claim that individuals won’t be punished for religious beliefs. Last summer, Michigan’s highest court ruled against two businesses who conducted their operations in accordance with their religious beliefs. The Michigan Supreme Court issued their ruling in <a href="https://www.courts.michigan.gov/courts/supreme-court/case-information/2021-2022-march-case-information/162482-rouch-world,-llc-v-department-of-civil-rights/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rouch World LLC, et al. v. Michigan Department of Civil Rights, et al.</a> based on a similar interpretation of civil rights protections passed Wednesday by the state legislature. 
The court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/michigan-supreme-court-rules-states-civil-rights-law-covers-sexual-orientation-gender-identity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">declared</a> last July that the state’s civil rights protection extended to sexual orientation and gender identity. The majority ruled against two businesses for refusing services based on their religious beliefs: Rouch World, who refused to host a same-sex wedding, and UpRooted Electrolysis, who refused to give hair removal services to a man identifying as a woman.

Transgender and LGBT Pride Flags

Michigan Legislature Bans LGBTQ+ Discrimination

Congress

LGBTQ

Michigan

The Delaware Supreme Court literally <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/delaware-supreme-court-approves-lowering-bar-exam-threshold-to-improve-racial-diversity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lowered</a> the bar this week by changing the grade needed to become a certified lawyer in The First State as part of its attempt to increase racial diversity among lawyers and judges. Yet, those responsible for the change insist that it has not lowered standards.
Of course, certain barriers are put in place to keep unqualified people from doing very important jobs. Nonetheless, Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said via a news release, &#8220;the bar exam is not supposed to be a barrier to entering the profession but is supposed to be a test of an applicant’s ability to successfully practice law in Delaware, and I believe these reforms will help better reflect that purpose.&#8221;
Despite lowering the standards, Seitz added &#8220;this is not a lowering of the standards but a modernization of the process to better reflect how other states handle admission to the bar.&#8221;
Delaware has one of the strictest bar exams in the country, and Seitz insists that will remain.
&#8220;The chief justice said these reforms will keep Delaware competitive in attracting top legal talent to the state and keep Delawareans interested in the law from going elsewhere,&#8221; the news release claimed.
Per the <a href="https://whyy.org/articles/delaware-bar-exam-changes-designed-to-increase-racial-diversity/amp/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">public news station</a>, WHYY, in Delaware, the following changes will take place:
<ul>
<li>Starting next year, the exam will be given twice annually — in February and July.</li>
<li>The “cut” or passing score for the exam of 200 multiple choice questions will be reduced from 145 to 143.</li>
<li>The number of essays will be cut from eight to four, and the number of areas of the law eligible for essays reduced from 14 to 10.</li>
<li>Reduced clerkship requirement from 21 weeks to 12 weeks.</li>
<li>Cut the number of legal proceedings potential lawyers must attend from a mandatory list of 25 items to 18 out of 30 potential items.</li>
<li>Reduced the late application fee for law school grads and attorneys admitted in other state</li>
</ul>
As pointed out by National Review, Delaware State Bar Association President Chuck Durante welcomed the changes while deriding &#8220;traditional barriers&#8221; as being unwelcoming toward minorities.
&#8220;These changes are designed to remove certain unnecessary impediments to applications to the Delaware bar, to rip some barbed wire from the welcome mat, some traditional barriers that had developed into something quite artificial,’’ Durante said.
<div class="c-message_kit__blocks c-message_kit__blocks--rich_text">
<div class="c-message__message_blocks c-message__message_blocks--rich_text" data-qa="message-text">
<div class="p-block_kit_renderer" data-qa="block-kit-renderer">
<div class="p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper--first">
<div class="p-rich_text_block" dir="auto">
<div class="p-rich_text_section"><a class="c-link" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9944">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Then, curiously, Durante, who is white, went off on a race-based tangent about &#8220;white people&#8221; and how the old criteria for Delaware dissuaded black and Hispanic people from applying.
The attorney claimed, &#8220;attitudes must continue to evolve in Delaware. White people generally who have their antennae up, who understand what is happening in society, have learned the meaning of microaggression.&#8221;
&#8220;They’ve learned the meaning of how to be welcoming, how to be professional, how to make this community better suited for diversity in its professional class, including its lawyers,&#8221; he added.
To translate that, it sounds as if Durante thinks that &#8220;white people&#8221; at large need to continue to adapt to woke ideology and bow at the altar of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Despite claims that the standards are still high, it does in fact change them, which automatically means less qualified candidates will be admitted to practice law in Delaware. Changes such as reduced clerkships and minimum legal proceedings will mean that new attorneys will have less experience.
If finances are what preclude qualified minorities from applying to the state bar, why not just focus on making those more affordable either via upfront reduction, scholarships, or grants? That would open the bar exam to all lower-income individuals — not just those of certain races, as Durante made clear was the goal.
There are two ways of immediately increasing racial diversity based on immutable demographics: One is blatant discrimination, which is illegal though it is oft attempted by the Left. The other is lowering standards so that there are more &#8220;winners&#8221; — so to speak.
Of course, in both cases, the final product — or in this case the quality of attorneys — is weakened because immutable characteristics rather than merit are prioritized. In the end, it will be the clients depending upon their attorneys to win in court who will suffer as the Delaware Bar exam sacrifices quality for DEI.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

(SimpleImages via Getty Images)

Delaware Literally Lowers The Bar To Increase Racial Diversity Of Lawyers, Judges

Delaware

Menu