The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will a hear a dispute that pits Comcast, America’s biggest cable company, against an African-American TV mogul accusing it of racial bias because it declined to carry any of his channels.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a dispute that pits Comcast , America’s biggest cable provider, against an African-American TV mogul accusing it of racial bias because it declined to carry any of his channels.
“It’s just going to make it so that it’s going to be easier for the bottom feeders of the trial bar to shake down small businesses,” said Harned, whose organization filed an amicus brief in the case, “and say, ‘We’re going to sue you unless you give us money.’” In 2015, Entertainment Studios sued Comcast , alleging discrimination under the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s contract provision, known as Section 1981. A federal judge dismissed the case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed, ruling Entertainment Studios only had to allege race was a “motivating factor” under Section 1981 in order for the case to avoid being dismissed at an early point in the litigation.
“It’s incredibly hard for a plaintiff to win a race discrimination case and if you set the standard so high that you have to show ‘but for cause’ it’s just going to pull the rug out from underneath individuals who have to prove that,” Michael Foreman, director of the civil rights clinic at Penn State Law, told Yahoo Finance.
“‘But for’ causation is a very difficult standard to meet. If ‘but for’ causation is required for 1981, then many meritous race discrimination cases won’t be able to go forward,” said Chemerinsky, telling Yahoo Finance that most courts have not required “but for” causation though some have. Unlike the more recent Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981 has no cap on damages. And unlike the Civil Rights Act, which doesn’t apply to businesses with fewer than 15 employees, Section 1981 applies to businesses of any size. “It seems apt in our view that Section 1981 would have a stricter proof burden given the breadth of potential damages provided under that law,” Vann noted. “Some employers depending on their size are faced with ‘bet the farm’ potential monetary liability.
Brasil Últimas Notícias, Brasil Manchetes
Similar News:Você também pode ler notícias semelhantes a esta que coletamos de outras fontes de notícias.
Forsaken by Trump, immigrant 'Dreamers' seek U.S. Supreme Court reprieveThousands of Dreamers who entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa as children are hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court as it begins hearing arguments to decide if President Trump violated a law in seeking to rescind DACA
Consulte Mais informação »
The supreme court hands India’s biggest communal flashpoint to HindusIndia’s supreme court granted Hindus possession of a site in the city of Ayodhya
Consulte Mais informação »
Spain politicians court undecided voters as campaign closesSpanish political leaders made a last-ditch appeal to undecided voters on Friday...
Consulte Mais informação »
James Wiseman Deemed Eligible After Court Ruling In Penny Hardaway ScandalIt ain't over ... at least not yet!!!
Consulte Mais informação »
Suspected white supremacist accused of plot to bomb synagogue appears in courtRichard Holzer, the 27-year-old suspected white supremacist arrested after allegedly planning to bomb a Colorado synagogue, appeared in federal court Friday.
Consulte Mais informação »
Spain court agrees to extradite Venezuelan ex-intelligence chief to USA: EFESpain's High Court has agreed to extradite former Venezuelan intelligence c...
Consulte Mais informação »