BREAKING NEWS – U.S. Supreme Court strikes down university race-conscious admissions policies

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down race-conscious student admissions programs currently used at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina in a sharp setback to affirmative action policies often used increase the number of Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented minority groups on campuses.

The justices ruled in favor of a group called Students for Fair Admissions, founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, in its appeal of lower court rulings upholding programs used at the two prestigious schools to foster a diverse student population.

The affirmative action cases represented the latest major rulings powered by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. The court in June 2022 overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide and widened gun rights in a pair of landmark rulings.

Many institutions of higher education, corporations and military leaders have long backed affirmative action on campuses not simply to remedy racial inequity and exclusion in American life but to ensure a talent pool that can bring a range of perspectives to the workplace and U.S. armed forces ranks.

According to Harvard, around 40% of U.S. colleges and universities consider race in some fashion.

Harvard and UNC have said they use race as only one factor in a host of individualized evaluations for admission without quotas – permissible under previous Supreme Court precedents – and that curbing its consideration would cause a significant drop in enrollment of students from under-represented groups.

Critics, who have tried to topple these policies for decades, argue these policies are themselves discriminatory.

Many U.S. conservatives and Republican elected officials have argued that giving advantages to one race is unconstitutional regardless of the motivation or circumstances. Some have advanced the argument that remedial preferences are no longer needed because America has moved beyond racist policies of the past such as segregation and is becoming increasingly diverse.

The dispute presented the Supreme Court’s conservative majority an opportunity to overturn its prior rulings allowing race-conscious admissions policies.

Blum’s group in lawsuits filed in 2014 accused UNC of discriminating against white and Asian American applicants and Harvard of bias against Asian American applicants.

Students for Fair Admissions alleged that the adoption by UNC, a public university, of an admissions policy that is not race neutral violates the guarantee to equal protection of the law under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The group contended Harvard, a private university violated Title VI of a landmark federal law called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Lower courts rejected the group’s claims, prompting appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to overturn a key precedent holding that colleges could consider race as one factor in the admissions process because of the compelling interest of creating a diverse student body.

Affirmative action has withstood Supreme Court scrutiny for decades, most recently in a 2016 ruling involving a white student, backed by Blum, who sued the University of Texas after being rejected for admission.

The Supreme Court has shifted rightward since 2016 and now includes three justices who dissented in the University of Texas case and three new appointees by former Republican President Donald Trump.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

SPMG Media – Subscribe Today – https://www.spmgmedia.com/

David’s Bridal in ‘advanced discussions’ with interested buyer to keep nearly 200 stores open

The company says the potential bid would save about 7,000 jobs and keep about 195 stores open.

 A potential lifeline could keep one of the largest sellers of wedding gowns in the country in business.

David’s Bridal, which is based in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania filed for bankruptcy in April.

The retailer employs more than 11,000 workers.

On Tuesday night, the company told 6abc it is in “advanced discussions” with an interested bidder for certain of its assets.

David’s Bridal says the potential bid would save about 7,000 jobs and keep nearly 195 stores open.

A hearing is scheduled for next month.

The company previously filed for bankruptcy in 2018 after being laden with growing debt and declining sales of wedding dresses. It emerged from bankruptcy in 2019 as it continued to try to fix the business.

Read the full statement released by David’s Bridal Tuesday night:

“As shared in court, David’s Bridal is in advanced discussions with an interested bidder for certain of our assets. This potential bid would save approximately 7,000 jobs of our hardworking dream makers across the country and result in the continuation of nearly 195 stores. While this is a very positive development, negotiations remain ongoing as we work to resolve certain outstanding items before the party will be in a position to submit a formal bid. We are committed to keeping our stakeholders updated as information becomes available.”

Los Angeles Community News – Subscribe Today – https://www.spmgmedia.com/los-angeles-community-news

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act goes into effect today. Here’s what workers and employers should know

  1. What is the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act? The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is a new law that requires covered employersto provide “reasonable accommodations” to a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an “undue hardship.”The PWFA applies only to accommodations. Existing laws that the EEOC enforces make it illegal to fire or otherwise discriminate against workers on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.The PWFA does not replace federal, state, or local laws that are more protective of workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. More than 30 states and cities have laws that provide accommodations for pregnant workers.
  2. When does the PWFA go into effect, and will the public have input on any regulations? The PWFA goes into effect on June 27, 2023. The EEOC is required to issue regulations to carry out the law. The EEOC will issue a proposed version of the PWFA regulations so the public can give their input and offer comments before the regulations become final.
  3. Is the EEOC accepting charges under the PWFA? The EEOC will start accepting charges under the PWFA on June 27, 2023. For the PWFA to apply, the situation complained about in the charge must have happened on June 27, 2023, or later. A pregnant worker who needs an accommodation before June 27th may, however, have a right to receive an accommodation under another federal or state law.In some situations, workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition may be able to get an accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, until June 27, 2023, the EEOC will continue to accept and process Title VII and/or ADA charges involving a lack of accommodation regarding pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.After June 27, 2023, the EEOC will analyze charges regarding accommodations for workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions under the PWFA (if the violation occurred after June 27, 2023) and, where applicable, under the ADA and/or Title VII.
  4. Who does the PWFA protect? The PWFA protects employees and applicants of “covered employers” who have known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”Covered employers” include private and public sector employers with at least 15 employees, Congress, Federal agencies, employment agencies, and labor organizations.
  5. What are some examples of reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers?  “Reasonable accommodations” are changes to the work environment or the way things are usually done at work.The House Committee on Education and Labor Report on the PWFA provides several examples of possible reasonable accommodations including the ability to sit or drink water; receive closer parking; have flexible hours; receive appropriately sized uniforms and safety apparel; receive additional break time to use the bathroom, eat, and rest; take leave or time off to recover from childbirth; and be excused from strenuous activities and/or activities that involve exposure to compounds not safe for pregnancy. Employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations unless they would cause an “undue hardship” on the employer’s operations. An “undue hardship” is significant difficulty or expense for the employer. 
  6. What else does the PWFA prohibit? Covered employers cannot:
    • Require an employee to accept an accommodation without a discussion about the accommodation between the worker and the employer;
    • Deny a job or other employment opportunities to a qualified employee or applicant based on the person’s need for a reasonable accommodation;
    • Require an employee to take leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided that would let the employee keep working;
    • Retaliate against an individual for reporting or opposing unlawful discrimination under the PWFA or participating in a PWFA proceeding (such as an investigation); or
    • Interfere with any individual’s rights under the PWFA.
  7. What other federal laws may apply to pregnant workers?  Other laws that apply to workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, include:
    • Title VII (enforced by the EEOC), which:
      • Protects an employee from discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and
      • Requires covered employers to treat a worker affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions the same as other workers similar in their ability or inability to work;
    • The ADA (enforced by the EEOC), which:
      • Protects an employee from discrimination based on disability; and
      • Requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to a person with a disability if the reasonable accommodation would not cause an undue hardship for the employer.
      • While pregnancy is not a disability under the ADA, some pregnancy-related conditions may be disabilities under the law.
    • The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor), which provides covered employees with unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons; and
    • The PUMP Act (Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act) (enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor), which broadens workplace protections for employees to express breast milk at work.

Los Angeles Community News – Subscribe Today – https://www.spmgmedia.com/los-angeles-community-news