Tag Info

In April 2017, a US District court on Colorado ruled that a law prohibiting women from exposing their breasts in public was an unconstitutional discrimination against women. The law was ordinance 134 passed by Fort Collins, Colorado in May 2016. The group opposing it was led by the activist organization "Free the Nipple." This ruling is not binding in other ...

Yes this is legal. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there is an exemption under Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunity that allows for discrimination based on a protected trait when there is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ). The wording is such that it can cover a slew of jobs that have just cause to discriminate against someone in their ...

Anti-discrimination laws apply to certain protected classes only. Homelessness (real or assumed) is not one of them, so it is perfectly legal to bar such people from your premises. It is also perfectly legal to bar people with red hair (assuming this is not indirect discrimination against certain racial groups). Nobody is required to serve everybody who ...

Relating to your UK tag. Arrests for mere nudity in the UK tend to be under the Public Order Act 1986, which prohibits behaviour that is "threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress". Don't ask me when full or partial nudity counts as "threatening, abusive or insulting", but ...

Homelessness is a protected class in some jurisdictions. Rhode Island and Illinois, for instance, have each adopted a "Homeless Bill of Rights" establishing the following guarantees: (1) the ability to use and move freely in public spaces, including public sidewalks, parks, transportation, and buildings, among other spaces; (2) equal treatment by ...

Contrary to another answer, as stated in footnote 13 of KNIGHT v. NASSAU COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION: It is true that Title VII allows employees to be classified on the basis of their religion, sex, or national origin if such a classification "is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of a ...

This is explicitly prohibited under 42 USC 2000e-2(c) (c)It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization— (1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; (2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or ...

Specifically regarding the question "let's say this goes to the Supreme Court". In Minor v. Happersett, which admittedly was back in 1875, the Supreme Court ruled that 14th Amendment "Equal protection" clause did not entitle women to vote. The question of whether it entitled them to go topless wasn't under consideration, but I think we can safely suppose ...

Was the individual prevented from entering because he was homeless or because he smelled bad? It seems that conclusions about the individual's living arrangements may not be the most relevant factor in this situation. From the description of the situation, it appears that the restaurant employees were concerned about an offensive odor, which is not a ...

Yes, it's legal. In a movie or theater production, the race of an actor is a relevant choice for the artistic message the director wants to convey. Not the genetic background, but the real appearance. Skin color, body stature, apparent gender and everything. Think of an example... Boys on the Side. Replace the chubby-to-overweight and black Whoopie Goldberg ...

The term "racism" is a political one, not a legal one, which refers to a belief. It is not illegal in the US, and it is a belief that is protected under the First Amendment. There is a legal construct, "discrimination on the basis of race", which enters into laws. For example, you may not discriminate in employment on the basis of race: ...

Why is a business allowed to refuse a customer? Because also freedom of contract is a right. Except for discrimination on the basis of protected categories, a person or entity is entitled to discretion on whether or with whom to do business and enter contracts. The last sentence in your post reflects a misconception of "completely different set of values ...

In the case of the ECOA, yes. The law applies to any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly participates in a credit decision, including banks, retailers, bankcard companies, finance companies, and credit unions. For example, a 2017 American Bankers Association report at pages 91-92 (internal pages numbers, add 7 for pdf page ...

Any society that makes rules will make rules that generally favor the people in power. Police are an essential component of a system that is built to maintain power for the people who are powerful, and there are few incentives for politicians, prosecutors or judges to punish them for maintaining order, even when they do so in ways that most people would ...

Read the last quote that you just posted. "in the absence of" means "without". The phrases are trying to say that there are two ways to discriminate. willfully, knowingly aiming to exclude minorities, and blaming it on the computer. Suppose somebody programs Siri to listen for that particular accent/affectation common in the black or hispanic ...

In general, the US government (federal, state, or local) may not provide disparate treatment of people based on race or sex. There are very limited circumstances in which a government program may be race- or sex-aware. As the New York Times said in the story "A Covid-19 Relief Fund Was Only for Black Residents. Then Came the Lawsuits.": Supreme ...

It seems very unlikely that this scenario is legal. A press release from the EEOC in Feb. 2019 JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has resolved its race discrimination lawsuit against the Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, IAFF. The EEOC's lawsuit against the union was a ...

The premise of the question is unsound. See, e.g., Alexander v. Bozeman Motors, Inc., 2010 MT 135 (Montana Supreme Court 2010) which held (in support of the overwhelming majority rule) that statutes are presumed constitutional, and the party challenging a statute bears the burden of proving the statute unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. The ...

Is the other legally liable? Yes, if found guilty by a court of law. How is it decided? By triers of fact and law, generally in a court. What conditions must be met to hold one as the perpetrator and the other as the victim? By being first to cry "rape!", does that make the other the perpetrator? By being female, does that make the other the ...