Tagged: 115 year pattern and practice of employment discrimination
even the Princeton Review was aware of William Morris’ pattern and practice of racial discrimination.
footnote 94
See, e.g., Faigman et al., supra note 84, at 1399 (noting that the Court “has never held that only consciously held and explicit motives qualify under the applicable law” and that “[e]specially in light of the science, such a construction seems particularly crabbed and artificial”); Wax, supra note 64, at 985 (stating that “what really matters, and what ought to matter, is whether people are treated worse because of their race — or other protected characteristic, such as sex — in the real world. Specifically, the focus should not be on attitudes or sympathies, but on…actionable discrimination…[D]iscrimination occurs when an individual is victimized by ill treatment that is causally linked to or based on a protected characteristic.”); Zatz, supra note 71, at 1374-75 (stating that ― “[s]cholars agree that the causal definition best captures the doctrinal category of ‘disparate treatment‘”).
Source: Tristin K. Green. The Future of Systemic Disparate Treatment Law pg. 24, footnote 94. 2011.
there is nothing they can say at this point that can refute the pyramid of evidence i have proving institutionalized racism in Hollywood & how corruption is vertically integrated throughout America’s judicial system. #fact
No matter what Arbitrator David L. Gregory decides in this case next month, that decision will have to be appealed because he denied me due process by prematurely and erroneously dismissing both of my conspiracy claims in his third Interim Decision, while simultaneously admitting smoking-gun, spoliated evidence that proves all of my claims, including claims of antitrust violations and conspiracy to interfere with civil rights! Smh. The fact that he has now admitted “Exhibit 31” into the evidence of the record after Republican appointed federal judge Robert P. Patterson dismissed it 8 years ago as an “unidentified and unauthenticated document” in Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris Agency et al., further PROVES what I have been arguing for nearly the last three years: the “discrimination” provision and/or the two arbitration agreements i signed as a condition of employment are unconscionable, tainted with illegality and malum in se AND arbitration is an inappropriate forum for this case because the public policy goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sherman Act and additional statutes being used to help eradicate institutionalized racism and employment discrimination throughout Hollywood (particularly at William Morris Endeavor Entertainment) cannot be effectuated in such an inadequate, quasi-judicial forum. This case should remain in the federal court and be decided by an impartial jury reflecting the diversity of New York City!!!
spending the day reading about the “political question doctrine.”
The political question doctrine stems from the concept of separation of powers between the three branches of government. Courts invoke the doctrine to avoid deciding a case on the merits if it raises issues that could be better resolved through political processes, or where a judicial decision would infringe upon powers that the Constitution commits to the other branches of government.
The exact parameters of the politicalquestiondoctrine are uncertain, as two schools of thought have presented competing interpretations of the doctrine’s breadth and scope. The classical approach to the politicalquestiondoctrine has focused on textual interpretations of constitutional provisions that grant specific powers to the executive or legislative branches. According to the classical approach, courts should decline to adjudicate claims based on the politicalquestiondoctrine only if the Constitution grants one of the political branches the authority to resolve the issue. Over time, though, courts incorporated prudential considerations about the effects of judicial jurisdiction into their analyses of the politicalquestiondoctrine. This meant that rather than restricting their inquiry to the text of the Constitution, courts also considered the practical ramifications of deciding to hear a case. Other courts have eschewed textual analysis completely and relied solely on prudential concerns to find cases nonjusticiable.
Advocates of the prudential approach argue that courts should avoid “rampant activism” and maintain their legitimacy by declining to adjudicate controversial claims on their merits. Proponents of the classical approach, on the other hand, argue that courts must fulfill their constitutionally mandated obligations to adjudicate cases and should therefore abstain from cases only when the Constitution has committed resolution of the issue to another branch. They contend that the prudential approach could be subject to abuse and that courts might decline to adjudicate cases simply because of their potential for controversy or complex subject matter. The tension between the classical and prudential approaches and the lack of clear standards for courts to determine whether claims raise political questions have led to scholarly critiques of the political question doctrine as ill defined and poorly conceived.
Source: Sarah Willig. Politics As Usual? The Political Question Doctrine In Holocaust Restitution Litigation. 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 723, 727-729. 2010.