Legal Writing for Legal Reading!


Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.

By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable.

Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

By James Taylor and published in Heart Land on February 18. 2013 and can be found here.

This was a follow up to a piece by James Taylor on March 14, 2021 printed below:

recent survey of American Meteorological Society members shows meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues.

According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.

This sharp contrast between the large majority of meteorologists who believe global warming is happening and the modest minority who are nevertheless very worried about it is consistent with other scientist surveys. This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis.

Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.

With substantially fewer than half of meteorologists very worried about global warming or expecting substantial harm during the next 100 years, one has to wonder why environmental activist groups are sowing the seeds of global warming panic. Does anyone really expect our economy to be powered 100 years from now by the same energy sources we use today? Why immediately, severely, and permanently punish our economy with costly global warming restrictions when technological advances and the free market will likely address any such global warming concerns much more efficiently, economically and effectively?

In another line of survey questions, 53% of respondents believe there is conflict among AMS members regarding the topic of global warming. Only 33% believe there is no conflict. Another 15% were not sure. These results provide strong refutation to the assertion that “the debate is over.”

Interestingly, only 26% of respondents said the conflict among AMS members is unproductive.

Overall, the survey of AMS scientists paints a very different picture than the official AMS Information Statement on Climate Change. Drafted by the AMS bureaucracy, the Information Statement leaves readers with the impression that AMS meteorologists have few doubts about humans creating a global warming crisis. The Information Statement indicates quite strongly that humans are the primary driver of global temperatures and the consequences are and will continue to be quite severe. Compare the bureaucracy’s Information Statement with the survey results of the AMS scientists themselves.

Scientists who have attended the Heartland Institute’s annual International Conference on Climate Change report the same disconnect throughout their various science organizations; only a minority of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis, yet the non-scientist bureaucracies publish position statements that contradict what the scientists themselves believe. Few, if any, of these organizations actually poll their members before publishing a position statement. Within this context of few actual scientist surveys, the AMS survey results are very powerful.

In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.


                Social networking has become so pervasive in our society that it is not going to disappear, at least anytime soon. However, aside from the issues which normally are raised, such as people revealing too much about their lives, whereabouts, plans, and opinions, there are serious legal implications and risks involved in posting information online, and many people are not aware that the information they post, or even information they don’t post, but can be tracked back to an electronic device they are using, can be used against them in court or in another official proceeding.

                Anything a client tells an attorney is generally protected by attorney-client confidentiality, and an attorney cannot be compelled to release that information in an adverse manner about a client in a court. However, any information that client divulges to others, in telephone calls, in online conversations, or in postings on social media websites, lacks that privilege and can be used against the client in court. Clients often want lawyers to discuss their issues with other family members and co-workers, especially in employment law cases, and although we can do so to a limited extent, a full-out disclosure of our legal theories and facts will generally not be helpful. Clients have also been surprised when:

  1.  A friend or a co-worker reveals information in a deposition or as a witness that the client thought was confidential.
  2. A friend or co-worker testifies in court in a totally different manner than the client thought they would testify.
  3. A friend or co-worker has a sudden and selective memory lapse regarding the factual situation involving the client.

Regardless of how much bravado a friend or co-worker exhibits to the client, and how supportive they profess to be, when they are placed under oath they usually become fearful that what they say may be used against them, they fear that an employer will retaliate against them for being supportive of another, or they become dumbfounded by the realization that they are a participant in a powerful legal system, and become frightened. It is often scary to be a witness.

Social networking has also aided law enforcement officials in doing their job, because persons who commit crimes often discuss or even brag, or post videos or photos, about their illegal activities online.  These disclosures can’t always be attributed to stupidity, since many people who commit crimes are intelligent, or at least savvy, but their egos apparently trump their thinking processes, as they feel bragging about their feats will enhance their stature in certain people’s eyes.

In the family law arena, Facebook profiles, Twitter posts, and e mails are often considered as good evidence, and one should be careful about the information they disseminate during divorce, child custody and visitation cases.  Bear in mind that family law issues usually involve high degrees of emotion, and airing those issues and feelings in public is a poor idea.

Also, in an online setting, everything can usually be traced back to a source, so if one posts comments, etc. on online forums and related sources, with the perception that they will be anonymous, those comments can come back to haunt you. The First Amendment does not protect all types of speech, and courts have started to carve out exceptions of unlimited free speech for Internet comments and malicious actions.   

So, although peoples’ lives seem to be open books these days, remember that your friends, family and business associates aren’t the only people interested in what is happening in your life, and unscrupulous people can use that information to steal your identity, your employer or potential employer can also read things about you which may impact on your job, and our government and its agencies are also scanning the Internet for information about us.

6th Circuit Dismisses Suit Against Anti-Israel Picketers of Synagogue

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Gerber v. Herskovitz, (6th Cir., Sept. 15, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit by synagogue members against anti-Israel pickets who have picketed services at the Beth Israel Synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan every week since 2003.  The district court had dismissed the suit on standing grounds. (See prior posting.) On appeal, the majority said in part:

The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of standing. We disagree on that point, as the plaintiffs have alleged a concrete and particularized harm to a legally protected interest. But the reality that they have standing to bring these claims does not entitle them to relief. The key obstacle is the robust protections that the First Amendment affords to nonviolent protests on matters of public concern. We affirm the district court’s dismissal on that basis.

Judge Clay filed a concurring opinion stating that he would have affirmed the district court’s dismissal on standing grounds, saying in part:

Plaintiffs’ allegations of extreme emotional distress fail to establish standing in this case because there is no legally protected interest in not being offended by the speech of others.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Templeton Project: Dogma and Bigotry

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Dogma and Bigotry.”

See also:


Intolerant of any opinion that differs from their own, distorting the views of others, and using ad hominem attacks to advance their argument sound to many moderns like Christians throughout history.  These characteristics are impressed on us by those who actually do these things, namely left wing activists.  Right wing ideologues can do the same thing; but, today the leftists seem to manifest such behavior to a much greater degree.

It is not the modern Christian Church that primarily commits these acts of bigotry.  Yes, Christians have a set of dogmas, teachings, that we defend in our loyalty to Christ.  Defense of dogma does not necessarily mean bigotry and intolerance though, unfortunately, such has happened in the history of the Church. Such bigotry is not in the spirit of Christ and His teachings. Christ holds us responsible for our failures and shows mercy to those who repent.

If one wants an eminently modern version of the relationship between dogma and bigotry, one has to look to the leftist movements of the last one hundred years.  In reading Karl Marx, you will find a consummate dogmatist who has spun out through his influence vile bigotry, hatred, and violence, even if he did not intend such a consequence.  Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are the primary examples.  The result of their bigotry has been the deaths of millions of people.  Indeed, the far right also has such a history.  Hitler is the primary example along with petty dictators, autocrats, and fanatics that have soaked their countries in blood, e.g. the Taliban in Afghanistan.

One can hold to a set of beliefs, i.e. dogma, without the hatred and blood.  Christian teachings stand against violence.  When it occurs among Christians, it shows a tremendous disloyalty to the teachings it wishes to proclaim and preserve.  It is not so with Communism or any far left movement.  They are born of violence.

When Christians witness, we must be careful to demonstrate truth and love, not truth and hatred, not possible anyway.  Let’s keep our tempers down so that we can witness effectively to those who have not yet accepted the Gospel of Christ.

Paul writes, “. . . speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ . . .”  (Ephesians 4: 15 ESV)  Let us always remember this wisdom when we witness to others.

Michael G. Tavella

August 24, 2019

Saint Bartholomew, Apostle

Joe Arcieri Songs: When I Say!

Joe Arcieri is a friend of mine who I worked with for many years during my ten years working for Acme Markets.  Joe, when not stocking milk or saving lives as a nurse, is an excellent guitar player.  I have had the privilege, from time to time, of (badly) plunking my bass guitar with Joe as he melts a face or two with a great solo.

As great musicians do, Joe has written some of his own songs and keeps a soundcloud site to post them.  When I have opportunity, I will post his music here as well.

Here is his composition called “When I Say!” which you can find here.

Here are the links to the previously posted songs by Joe:

I Don’t Accept Science

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I recently came across one in Splice Today by my old philosophy professor Dr. Crispin Sartwell from back in my Penn State days which, I thought, was pretty insightful.

 I have seen a recent proliferation of articles in respected publications pointing out, bemoaning, and/or highlighting increasing problems with the trustworthiness of the alleged findings of the contemporary scientific community.  I find these articles to be particularly interesting given how our society looks to science as a (the?) source of ultimate truths (often as a mutually exclusive alternative to spirituality).  This sort of scientism may be misplaced, and these articles delve into the pitfalls that come with such an approach.

Here are the links the other articles I posted on this subject:

Be edified.


Crispin Sartwell

Especially now that you doinks have identified it with your own political ideology.

“Science is the truth,” says Anthony Fauci frequently, in common with his cultural cohort. All Democrats say the same, and they also insist on a commitment to Science—total epistemic submission to whatever Science may pronounce on any given topic—as central to their political ideology.

This position is unsustainable. And it’s obviously non-scientific. I wonder whether Fauci thinks, for example, that Science can establish its own status as all of and only the Truth. That is: could one imagine scientific experiments or studies that demonstrate that no non-scientific procedure (oh, ordinary sense experience, for example, or the arts) could yield any truth? First, we’d have to clearly and carefully define “Science.” Unfortunately, defining terms, as it shows when it thrashes around with “Truth,” isn’t Science’s strength.

This position that Science is Truth might mean any of several things. It might mean that whatever Science has declared (let’s assume for a second that Science can make declarations) was true when Science declared it. For example, Aristotelian physics was true until around 1700, when the physical laws of the universe shifted profoundly. They shifted again early in the 20th century under Einstein’s auspices. Coffee, olive oil or red wine was good for you, then bad for you, then good for you. Homosexuality was once actually an illness, now it’s a sign of good health. There was no reason to mask up in February; now it’s better than a vaccine. The universe was once in a steady state, but now it’s expanding.

Or “Science is Truth” might mean that whatever Science declares right now is the eternal Truth, though what it proclaimed 20 years ago was liable to be false. On this picture, by 2015 or a week ago Wednesday or whenever it happened to be, Science had jettisoned all error. Now, knowing that to be the case would evidently require a standard of truth external to science. Such a standard is impossible if Science is the Truth.

“One of the problems we face in the United States,” Fauci said in June, “is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are—for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable—they just don’t believe science and they don’t believe authority.” Even if Science is Truth, such formulations strongly suggest that Fauci and his fellow devotees could’ve benefited from some English classes. That you have and are the Truth, an avatar of Reality, doesn’t entail that you can express yourself coherently. But one thing he’s clear about right there: the identity of Science and Authority.

Science was once conceived as, let’s say, a family of techniques for close and careful and systematic empirical observation. But contrary to various middle-school lectures, I don’t think it ever amounted to a single, clearly formulaic method. It includes the techniques of astronomers (instrument-aided observation), psychology (undergraduate questionnaires), experimental chemistry (hypothesis and reproducible test), medicine (double-blind placebo studies), anthropology (immersion and empathy), and economics (statistics), among many other procedures.

But the way people are thinking about science right now is as a moral system and a political ideology (I capitalize the word to indicate this use): “We always follow the Science in the Democratic Party,” says party chairman Tom Perez, and Joe Biden describes himself and his people as “science followers” every day. “The GOP has a long history of ignoring science,” writes Matthew Dallek in The Washington Post, and Trump is the worst of all, of course: “That’s because he sees science less as a normative value, a thing that enables progress, and more as a political tool,” with regard to things like vaccines and wildfires.

It’s too bad if Trump is using Science as a political tool, but what I want to focus on is the flat declaration that Science is a “normative value.” I don’t think science is serviceable in that capacity, and you had better decide right now whether it’s a method for getting the truth about the world or a progressive political ideology. And if it is a progressive normative theory and political philosophy, and you’re a progressive, then banning or ridiculing what you’re calling “science denialism” is just banning and ridiculing opposition to your political leanings, isn’t it? And Dallek thinks Trump’s use of science is self-serving.

I think the relentless emphasis on Science as Truth is a rhetorical ploy, a way to trap and discredit the opponents of the self-described Science fundamentalists. But it’s a terrible rhetorical move. You’re asking me to wear a mask, and giving as a reason that I have to accept Science, which is like saying that the reason I shouldn’t be unkind to people is because I have to accept Religion, or Morality. In other words, you’re trying to get me to do something fairly modest and commonsensical, and you’re justifying that by insisting that I have to accept a giant cloud of assertions, most of which I haven’t even heard. To persuade me to wear a mask, you think you have to make me accept indefinitely many other assertions to which it is not even related (e.g. “the universe is expanding”).

And, you’re asserting this fundamentally on sheer authority, as Fauci so frankly asserts. Or you’re simply identifying Science as epistemic authority, or even as the only epistemic authority. Sorry, but I’m an anti-authoritarian, and I’ll believe just as I please.

But far be it from me to be a “science denialist”: for one thing, to deny something sensibly, you’ve got to know what it is. I don’t believe that “science,” much less “Science,” can be defined in a way that includes all its central disciplines and procedures. “Denying” science would entail denying a history of millions of factual assertions (many of which contradict each other). I’ve got no idea what I’d be denying if I denied science, for the most part, just as you’ve got no idea what you’re affirming when you affirm it.

Bludgeoning everybody all the time with Science is a terrible rhetorical strategy, and a notably irrational style of argumentation. So yes, I’m wearing a mask, but no: until you can give me some clear notion of what you’re asking me to accept, I don’t accept Science, and I’ll be assessing its claims piecemeal and not accepting things just because the person who said it has a Ph.D. or because I’m desperate for some authority to tell me what to believe.

But if I were, I’d be looking for someone a bit more eloquent than Fauci.

—Follow Crispin Sartwell on Twitter: @CrispinSartwell

You can find the article here.

After 20 Years Of Litigation, Suit On Religion In Child Placement Is Settled And Dismissed

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

This week, a Kentucky federal district court dismissed the remaining Establishment Clause claim in Pedreira v. Sunrise Children’s Services, Inc., (WD KY, Sept. 8, 2021), after both plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The case, which involves a challenge to Kentucky’s funding of treatment for abused and neglected children in facilities operated by Sunrise Children’s Services, a Baptist organization, has been in litigation for 20 years. On Sept. 9, Americans United announced that in January the parties had entered an 18-page, single-spaced Settlement Agreement (full text) which sets out in detail provisions to prevent children in child care facilities and foster home placements from having unwanted religious activities imposed and assures respect for a child’s religious preference.  It also requires respect for a child’s sexual orientation and gender identity. Parts of the settlement were required to be incorporated into state regulations. A previous settlement agreement had been held unenforceable. (See prior posting.)

You can learn more about this issue here.

Inspiring Philosophy:  The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?)

Saint Peter instructs believers to “[a]lways be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence’ (1 Peter 3:15). Over the course of its existence, the Church has called the process of explaining, arguing for, and/or answering questions about, the Christian Faith apologetics (see here). Apologetics is defined as the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. Someone who engages in apologetics is an apologist.

Perhaps my favorite apologist on Youtube is Michael Jones who creates videos for the channel Inspiring Philosophy. I find his work engaging, his arguments sound, and the topics he covers broad and interesting. As a result, I have decided to post his videos here and, as I usually do for these sorts of things, I will keep a running list of links to prior videos with each post of a new video.

Past videos:

Please be edified by this video:

Joe Arcieri Songs: Dawn (Rocking This Out For Andy in Memory of Dawn!)

Joe Arcieri is a friend of mine who I worked with for many years during my ten years working for Acme Markets.  Joe, when not stocking milk or saving lives as a nurse, is an excellent guitar player.  I have had the privilege, from time to time, of (badly) plunking my bass guitar with Joe as he melts a face or two with a great solo.

As great musicians do, Joe has written some of his own songs and keeps a soundcloud site to post them.  When I have opportunity, I will post his music here as well.

Here is his composition called “Dawn (Rocking This Out For Andy in Memory of Dawn!)” which you can find here.

Here are the links to the previously posted songs by Joe:

American Airlines flight attendants who sued the carrier for sexual harassment after male coworkers called them ‘prostitute’ and ‘sow’ on Facebook will appeal ruling after a judge dismissed their case

  • Flight attendants Melissa Chinery, formerly based in Philadelphia, and Laura Medlin, based in Charlotte, sued American Airlines in March 2017 
  • They accused male coworkers of sexual and gender harassment on Facebook
  • In a Facebook group for American flight attendants four to five male employees allegedly insulted the women calling them ‘prostitute’ and ‘sow’
  • The women say American Airlines failed to enforce their social media policy and failed to discipline the online harassers
  • A judge dismissed the case on August 27, the women will file appeal next week

The two flight attendants who sued American Airlines alleging they were sexually harassed by male coworkers on Facebook, are appealing the lawsuit after a judge dismissed their case.

Melissa Chinery, who was formerly based in Philadelphia, and Laura Medlin, based in Charlotte, will file an appeal in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a week, they announced on Tuesday.

The woman filed their lawsuit in March 2017 in US District Court in Philadelphia accusing their male coworkers of sexual and gender harassment for calling them ‘prostitute’ and ‘sow’ in a Facebook Group for American flight attendants.

The women say four to five Philadelphia-based male flight attendants were behind the online insults and slurs.

American Airlines flight attendants Laura Medlin, of Charlotte, (left) and Melissa Chinery, of Philadelphia, (right) sued American Airlines in March 2017 alleging that they were sexually harassed by male coworkers posting in a Facebook group

A judge dismissed their case on August 27. The women announced they will file an appeal next week

‘American Airlines is [generally] proactive in disciplining employees who do things that negatively impact the airline, but is dragging its heels in trying to enforce social media [policy] for their employees,’ their lawyer Faye Riva Cohen said according to Forbes.

‘I feel [American] has no interest in social media policy. They just hang it out there,’ she added.

The women argue that the court failed to consider social media as a modern-day workplace environment where employees interact with each other.

‘People are being bullied [and] there should be repercussions when that occurs,’ Cohen said.

In the women’s lawsuit Medlin said she was harassed and called a ‘sow’ while Chinery was called a ‘flipper’ which is a synonym for prostitute.

They say they were harassed due to their union activities supporting a leader their harassers opposed, according to the Charlotte Observer.

Speaking on Chinery’s case Robreno ruled that the comments did not qualify as sexual harassment.

‘Looking at all of the complained of behavior objectively, even that which does not appear connected to gender and instead appears to be related to Chinery’s stance on union issues, the behavior does not amount to severe or pervasive sexual harassment,’ he said.

Four men allegedly insulted the women, posted a photograph of a broken record, and said Chinery ‘did not present a good appearance to passengers [and] allegedly posting a picture of a bedazzled vagina’.

After a judge dismissed their case saying the Facebook posts didn’t interfere with the women’s work performance, Chinery took to Facebook to vent with this image that says ‘Making Flight Attendants Sick’

Medlin posted a long status saying that her complaints on the Facebook behavior was never investigated by the American Airlines HR Department

‘The court concludes that the complained-of conduct was not so objectively severe or pervasive that it would unreasonably interfere with an employee’s work performance,’ wrote Robreno.

In Medlin’s case she alleged she was sexually harassed on Facebook between 2012 and 2015 where she was called a ‘sow’ and a ‘mean girl’.

‘While there are a number of serious questions that are raised by Medlin’s claims, including whether the alleged harassment over Facebook was due to her sex rather than her opinions regarding labor unions and whether it actually occurred in a work environment, it is clear that the alleged instances of harassment were not adequately severe or pervasive to establish American’s liability,’ Robreno ruled.

But the women say the American failed to enforce their social media policies by not acting upon the online insults.

‘American is proud to foster a work environment in which all team members are respected. When American receives reports of alleged harassment in the workplace, those complaints are investigated and appropriate action is taken,’ American spokesman Matt Miller said to DailyMail.com.

Following the case’s dismissals the women took to Facebook to vent.

Citing spokesman Matt Miller’s statement, Medlin took to Facebook writing: ‘Except THEY WEREN’T investigated. Is the “appropriate action” to ignore complaints from FOUR WOMEN to HR and management about the harassment, because THAT is what happened. Dan Cleverly, HR Specialist, UNDER OATH admitted to DOING NOTHING In his deposition.’

Originally published in the Daily Mail as seen here.

Post Navigation