Knowing the makeup of the court, you know how this one came out already. Summary judgment for the company, Kia Motors,
affirmed. Judge Branch writes the majority opinion. There are six separate opinions in all:
BRANCH, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, GRANT, TJOFLAT, ED CARNES, MARCUS, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, joined.
WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, filed a concurring opinion.
JORDAN, Circuit Judge, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
WILSON, Circuit Judge, filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
MARTIN, Circuit Judge, filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, joined.
ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge, filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, joined.
Interestingly, 4 senior judges elected to participate in the case, and all of them voted with the majority. Had they not participated, it looks like there would have been a 3 judge plurality.
9 comments:
Forget the law and the internal politics of the judges on the 11th Circuit for a minute. This is an illustrative set of facts on white privilege.
The case is about three white American managers at a Kia plant in north Georgia that didn't like that their Korean counterparts run the place using cultural norms that are different than the white Americans are used to.
The plaintiff (one of the three white Americans) complained that she was not given "the freedom that she regarded ‘as a basic aspect of being an American and working in an American environment.’” Opinion at p. 9.
Another of the three white American Kia employees, who was supposed to be in charge of "protocol and events," resented that "she was asked to pour wine for the Korean executives at these events and, upon their arrival at the plant, to hold flowers and say, 'Welcome, Chairman.'" Opinion at FN 4.
Ultimately, "tensions developed as some American managers came to resent what they perceived as a lack of respect for and deference to the American managers' input."
Another complaint of the three white Americans was that a mid-level manager, who happened to be a black American woman, was purportedly having an affair with Kia's Korean chairman. And the white Americans were concerned that "[t]his alleged relationship was of concern [because] this relationship enabled [black American woman] 'to improperly use her position of manager to control subordinate employees' like [the white American woman in charge of protocol and events]". See Opinion p. 6.
When these three white American managers got together and started talking about suing Kia for discriminatory practices, another Kia manager, this time a black man (who is presumably accustomed to working for people who don't look like him and who have different cultural norms than he does) thought it was fishy and ratted them out. Opinion at p. 13.
After the black American manager ratted the three white American managers out, two of the white American managers (a man and a woman) were fired because Kia no longer trusted them. Litigation ensued.
White person sues for discrimination and loses is an example of white privilege?
@3:59. Yup. Three white people were so upset that they weren't in charge, and that people who weren't white were in charge, that they thought it violated the constitution. That's basically white privilege in a nutshell.
Funny enough, the 11th Circuit (who most of you complain is too "conservative") saw through it.
337
I think your characterization of the facts is way off. While national origin discrimination is also alleged, i read this as mostly a ***gender*** discrimination case. The plaintiff is a woman.
You say:
"The case is about three white American managers at a Kia plant in north Georgia that didn't like that their Korean counterparts run the place using cultural norms that are different than the white Americans are used to."
The "cultural norms" you view as banal are alleged to be evidence the company treated women inferior to men. They are used as props for the ceo because that apparently is custom in korea.
From these facts you see white privilege?
May i ask....do you happen to be male?
@758, this is 337:
Absolutely, this case dealt with both gender and national origin. That it dealt with one does not mean it did not deal with the other too. The gender issues, however, are not novel (which is not to say that they are forgivable or acceptable). The gender issues are, unfortunately, things that we see and hear every day. And while the gender issues in this case may be unfortunate, it is not exactly breaking news that a woman may not have been treated the same as men in corporate job.
What makes this case novel and newsowrthy is the "man bites dog" nature of the national origin claims.
I think these two quotes, which I already cited, speak to this issue:
The plaintiff (one of the three white Americans) complained that she was not given "the freedom that she regarded ‘as a basic aspect of being an American and working in an American environment.’” Opinion at p. 9.
Ultimately, "tensions developed as some American managers came to resent what they perceived as a lack of respect for and deference to the American managers' input." Opinion FN 4 (I screwed up the citation earlier, but who cares - this is an anonymous blog comment).
And yes, that's white privilege in action.
Maybe you disagree. Ok. Write up your analysis. I am sure that DOM will publish it.
All you people who hate America and want to see its institutions (like an independent judiciary and DOJ) be destroyed, please hold up on your victory lap:
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/30/897205758/full-d-c-appeals-court-agrees-to-take-up-michael-flynn-legal-case
431
You think an evidentiary hearing in the flynn case would prove it was righteous?
Typically when people speak of an "independent judiciary" they aren't envisioning a judge acting as a prosecutor.
I’d posit they also aren’t envisioning a judge who rubber stamps parties’ positions. I welcome a happy medium. A judge who takes seriously the importance of deciding a matter on as full a record and with the benefit of as full briefing as possible. Note Gleason wasn’t sent on a fact-gathering mission, as a judge sitting in the role of prosecutor might order. Note also Gleason recommended no contempt. Note also too that, should the en banc court kick it back to Sullivan that he very well could dismiss. And that wouldn’t make this exercise a waste of time; it would still serve as a vindication of the powers granted district judges in deciding whether leave, under Rule 48, should be granted. And as a vindication of the idea that mandamus should remain a tool of very limited use, lest the other side’s pet cause du jour (whoever the other side is at the moment) wind up in the crosshairs of a petition for extraordinary writ Inappropriately. Righteous checks on power serve everyone, and if one falls to suit the prevailing political winds what remains to hold the sails fast when those winds shift? (Obviously, I don’t sail) And if leave to dismiss is denied because (lets just imagine the impossible here for this exercise...) improper political influence such that the government was no longer serving the interests of, well, the governed, or worse, wouldn’t we want a mechanism in place in the future to expose corruption in a case that more aligns with our political leanings? If the “with leave of court” language (to the extent it’s not meaningless surplussage) is just such a mechanism (I’m in favor of sending this one all the way up to get an answer), wouldn’t it be a good thing to not undermine or cripple it by the improper application of mandamus where an adequate remedy at law - appeal - is available?
Post a Comment