judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “office”

EEOC Sues Over Firing of Muslim Employee

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

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit against KASCO, a St. Louis-based company that manufactures and sells butcher supplies and meat processing equipment. The press release explains:

According to EEOC’s lawsuit, Latifa Sidiqi had worked for KASCO since 2008, most recently as a buyer. After she began more seriously practicing her religion in 2012, a supervisor and others began making derogatory comments about her fasting during Ramadan, wearing a hijab, and her native country, Afghanistan. The agency charged that Sidiqi was fired during Ramadan 2013 because of her religion and national origin, and because she complained about her supervisor’s treatment.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Advertisements

Demographic Nonsense

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I recently came across one in Splice Today which, I thought, was pretty insightful. Be edified.

________________

Today, when we try to explain political results or describe the political landscape, we often do it in terms of which demographic groups—genders, races, orientations, classes, regions—voted for whom. And as political consultants and politicians try to win elections, they start the same way; they try to figure out how to dominate among white suburban women, for example. I’ve argued that politics relying on exploiting demographics—a style and a strategy more and more relentlessly prosecuted by both parties—is a contradictory nonsense, as well as a terribly unfortunate attempt to make the divisions between Americans ever more extreme. Here, I’m going to elaborate on articles I wrote for The Wall Street Journal.

First, it’s all rather evil.  The basic approach of the Clinton campaign, according to its own strategists and surrogates—white guys such as Robby Mook and Joel Benenson—was to focus on relentlessly on turning out “women and minorities.” As demographics shift, they’ve long held, Democrats will dominate this growing segment of the population, and hence elections. (There is one problem here; the category “women and minorities” makes no sense.)

This has been a strategy for the last several cycles, in particular since the emergence of the “gender gap” in the 1990s; it was relentless in 2016. And I think it’s fair to say that Republicans have implicitly focused on white people and men as their basic constituency for decades, at least since Nixon played “the Southern card.” In Trump/Bannon nationalism, with its throwback style of sexuality and racial signaling, this appeal has become explicit.

In 2016, both sides leaned heavily on demographic analyses in deciding where the candidate should appear, for example, or in figuring out how to assemble an Electoral College majority. Particularly for the Democrats, however, this style of analysis is breathtakingly incoherent. The electoral coalition they imagine—of women, minorities, urban dwellers, gay and trans people—is conceptually impossible. The simplest way to see this is that the population cannot be split into two groups, women/minorities and men/white people.

A majority of American women are white, while half the members of racial minority groups are men. A coalition in which one party represents women and minorities and the other represents men and white people splits each of the white women and each of the minority men right between the hemispheres of their brains. Mook and Benenson were calling on people’s race to vote against their gender, and vice versa. If people can’t undergo fission into their demographic memberships—if, for example, a black, straight, middle-class man can’t be pulled apart into four different voters—this is all nonsense.

As a matter of fact, Trump won white women, leading to an outraged feminist condemnation of their reactionary sisters. Didn’t they know they were women first and white people second? Trump also did surprisingly well among minority men. These splits could continue to grow as the parties try to maximize them, and neither party would win an enduring advantage.

If I want to vote the way the parties want me to vote, and I am, for example, a rural straight Latino female, how would I proceed? The parties not only want to slice up the population and turn bits of it against the other bits, but to slice up each of us and, I suppose, turn us against ourselves, or force this poor sap to figure out whether she’s more straight than female, or more rural than Latino.

This does, in part, explain the interminable deadlock of our politics. Even as Democrats wait for demographic shifts to carry them to power, the growing minority population is half-male, the growing out-gay population is mostly white, and so on. Almost any way they try to maximize the demographic advantages they believe will serve them will also maximize the advantages of their opponents. We’re likely to be stuck here for a long time.

The parties got into this hell through polling, which has dominated every campaign. You can poll women, and you can poll white people. These two polls deliver different numbers; they appear to focus on different demographic segments. But the populations overlap at a rate of 50 percent, and your appeal is liable to alienate the other 50. These data heads seem clever, but they’re making howling mistakes.

If there’s a stage further into or beyond demographic politics, it may be signaled by Cambridge-Analytica-style “psychometrics.” The Democrats were still operating in 2016 at the primitive and incoherent level of large demographic segments, but the data analysis and targeting tools that are coming online now promise to target voters, or consumers, “down to the level of the individual.” If that were indeed possible, it might to some extent overcome the sort of conceptual problems I’m identifying. The Trump’s campaign’s micro-targeting, as opposed to the Dems’ primitive approach to the electorate in terms of large-scale groups demographic segments, might in part explain how Trump beat Clinton.

Micro-targeting might also lead to more sophisticated manipulations, more divisive appeals to group identities, smaller echo chambers. And yet if they come into my social media feeds appealing to my eccentric politics or consumption behavior as well as my demographic memberships—if they really atomize their appeals down to the level of individuals—the lines between groups might liquify a little.

I’m a white, heterosexual, rural male. And yet, if I were forced to choose sides among the demographic parties, I’d choose to go with the women and minorities (or I would, if the category were coherent). I don’t mean to make parties representing male whites and female people of color precisely morally equivalent, and the historical oppression exercised by people like me would make me go in the opposite direction; I don’t want to be in the racist, sexist party (though I also don’t want to be in the statist party). But, standing outside the process, it’s hard not to notice the cumulative effects of both parties together trying to maximize the gender and racial gaps. It’s tearing the country apart, at the scale of whole regions and groups, but also in villages, offices and families.

We might say that demographic politics imply a theory of human identity in which each of us is a stack or collage of memberships in social groups, in which each of us is a race/gender/nationality/orientation/class. Our behavior, and in particular our consumption and political behavior, is supposed to follow out of this stack, and hence to be manipulated through these memberships, which call out loyalties and real interests, but which are also in conflict, between the groups or within the self.

I wonder whether that exhausts the way you understand your self, whether that’s all you are or all you might aspire to be.

By Crispin Sartwell published on March 26, 2018 in Splice Today and can be seen here.

American Airlines Flight Attendants To Appeal Facebook Harassment Ruling

The Melissa Chinery and Laura Medlin cases against American Airlines, cases currently being litigated by my firm, the Law Office of Faye Riva Cohen, P.C., have been featured in an article entitled “American Airlines Flight Attendants To Appeal Facebook Harassment Ruling,” in Savvy Stews b published on September 2, 2018, which can be found here.

___________________________________

We’ve all read company policy regarding employee conduct on social media sites. Although one would assume that these policies are there to put a stop to and even prevent workplace bullying, they are only useful if companies enforce them.

In a blow to two American Airlines flight attendants this week, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno ruled that the evidence of workplace bullying and harassment brought forth by flight attendants Melissa Chinery and Laura Medlin was insufficient and untimely. The harassment was also experienced by several additional women who issued affidavits but were not part of the lawsuit itself.

The worst part, American Airlines didn’t do a thing to stop it in the first place.

“The company called me when this all started. My flight service manager said that he was getting calls that I was being harassed publicly on Facebook. My manager called me, then failed to take any action to stop the problem” – Chinery

Faye Riva Cohen, the law firm that represents the plaintiffs, issued the following statement:

“We are disappointed by the Judge’s decision.  Our clients were victims of gender-based discrimination. Given the unique nature of social media, the harassment our clients experienced was all-pervasive and impossible to escape. We believe that the Judge failed to adequately consider the power of social media and its impact on the workplace.

Additionally, we believe that American Airlines acted improperly. American Airlines maintains a social media policy that is used to police the online conduct of its employees. Nevertheless, American Airlines failed to take our clients’ complaints seriously. Until employers treat online bullying with the severity that it deserves, women will continue to be at a disadvantage in the workplace. Our clients are weighing their options to appeal the decision.”

Ms. Chinery shares, The company called me when this all started. My flight service manager said that he was getting calls that I was being harassed publicly on Facebook. My manager called me, then failed to take any action to stop the problem. No apologies from anyone, just an escalated attack.”

RINGLEADER EMBOLDENED BY RULING

Jim Brown, one of the flight attendants accused of the harassment, began gloating on Facebook immediately following the judge’s ruling. He may have spoken too soon since the plaintiffs are planning to appeal the judge’s decision which could legally expose him and American Airlines.

Jim Brown, accused of harassment, has been given cushy positions in the Purser program and others.

In his deposition, Jim Brown admitted to sending a complaint to the company about Chinery that he thought would be anonymous. He also admitted fabricating a story regarding referring to Chinery as “flipper” (slang for “whore”) “to cover my tracks by creating another post and a fake person” (from Brown’s deposition). Despite lying about his words, Brown remains a member of several committees and in the training department and to date has not been investigated. He continues to publicly post on social media, on the day of Judge Robreno’s ruling, saying he was, “Feeling delighted… My message is about Karma working it’s [sic] judicious magic!”

BROWN-NOSING HAS ITS PRIVILEGES?

American Airlines has yet to investigate the harassment claims internally and the men named in the lawsuit remain on special projects, in training positions, and continue to be rewarded with promotions as they are paid and deployed to publicize company messaging to their coworkers. Rewards even included invitations to the wedding of American’s Chief Financial Officer, creating the appearance of special treatment and selective enforcement of company policy.

One may wonder who is responsible for the selection of these individuals to serve in special assignment and training positions. What consequences may they eventually face?

ONLINE WORKPLACE HARASSMENT GROWING PROBLEM

There is a lawsuit against United Airlines for failing to intervene in a pilot’s harassment of a flight attendant. American’s failure to put a stop to the bullying that took place against Ms. Chinery may eventually end up opening a Pandora’s box of liability for the carrier as others step forward to share their experiences and American’s lack of support.

In his memorandum, Judge Robreno writes, “Medlin details only a handful of instances of alleged sexual harassment between 2012 and 2015…including…the general use of sexually-oriented profanity.” Judge Robreno further stated that “insults in the workplace do not constitute discrimination ‘merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations.’” Judge Robreno also contends the alleged harassment was not physically threatening despite the litigants having complained to American Airlines about threats of physical harm.

THEY GANGED UP

Jim Brown wasn’t the only one allowed to get away with behavior that conflicted with the American Airlines social media policy:

[From evidence submitted to the court]

Rick Haskins, a male flight attendant, writing regarding coworkers who voted against a union contract proposal, “Those sixteen people should be shot.”

Daniel Datzer another flight attendant wrote, “I do not respect the 51 percent…… And I NEVER will…. Clowns, fools, morons… This will drastically come back to bite them in their uneducated, bilious, petty, small-minded, redneck lazy tired asses…. I will NEVER stop asking how people voted each time I fly and they will be treated accordingly… This is not a joke…. My anger and deep seated frustration WILL have a place to go… Directly at the enemy. I will maintain the level of professionalism that I have for myself…. But make no mistake…. They will know my discontent and pure disgust at their selfish inhumane actions… And it will NOT be cozy for them….I have this fantasy where the 49 percent goes off and forms its own base…… Because frankly, that is the only way the 51% are going to be able to escape what is coming.”

Victor Dunson wrote, “this is war… If you f**k with my friends you f**k with me and I don’t like being f**ked with: (.”

Judge Robreno also contended in his ruling that “Datzer used coarse sexual language” but that it “does not amount to severe or pervasive sexual harassment.” a picture of a “bedazzled vagina,” repeatedly used the word “c**t,” called a coworker a “sow,” referred to coworkers as “harpies and shrews,” and wrote “have any of them LOOKED in a mirror? Tuck your shirt in fat ass… Fix your hair… How bout a tie? A little lipstick?”

AMERICAN DID NOT LIFT A FINGER

Ana Burke-Leon, AA Human Resources

Despite the legal ruling, according to its policies, US Airways / American Airlines failed to follow its own rules and did not investigate multiple complaints brought to Human Resources by many women. Ana Burke-Leon, AA Human Resource Specialist, tasked with examining Chinery and Medlin’s claims states in her deposition, “Discrimination, unlawful harassment and retaliation in the workplace will not be tolerated.”  She stated the policy included derogatory posts, jokes, letters, e-mail or graffiti that denigrate or show hostility toward an individual or group based on but not limited to race, color, religion, gender, or gender identity.

FROM THE DEPOSITION OF AMERICAN’S HUMAN RESOURCE SPECIALIST, ANA BURKE-LEON

If ever there was an instance to back up employee mistrust in human resource departments, the responses given by American’s HR representative to questions from the plaintiff’s attorney would justify their suspicions.

In her deposition, Burke-Leon repeatedly evades the questions brought forth by Chinery and Medlin’s counsel about whether or not the “c-word,” when used by a male employee to refer to a female employee, would be tolerated:

 Q. Do you consider the word, the use of the C-U-N-T to be an epithet, derogatory comment or slur?

A. Yes.

Q. What’s your understanding as to what that word means?

A. It’s a derogatory word used to describe a female.

Q. So if a male employee refers to a female employee as —

A. You can say it. I understand.

Q. I will say the “C” word. If a male employee refers to a female employee as the “C” word, does that fall within these bullet points list of the type of conduct that will not be tolerated?

A. It will depend on the context. It would depend on if it’s directly related or specific name, a person is involved. It will depend on the context.

Q. If a male employee refers to a female employee as the “C” word, do you consider that to be a derogatory comment?

A. It depends on the way it’s stated. It depends on the content. It depends on the content.

Q. Do you consider a male employee referring to a female employee as the “C” word to be a slur?

A. A slur? I don’t know.

Ana Burke-Leon was tasked with interviewing one of the men named in the lawsuit but in her deposition says she did not because on the scheduled day of her flight to meet him, she “went to the wrong gate” and missed the flight. The matter was later looked into by another member of HR. Burke-Leon went on to say, “Daniel stated that his Facebook page was compromised and that he does not believe he made those comments.”

Another senior Human Resource investigator, Dan Cleverly, admitted under oath that he did not-at-all investigate Medlin’s harassment complaints and concerns. She repeatedly emailed him requesting assistance but was ignored.  When questioned, Cleverly’s response in his deposition was “Because it got lost in my shuffle.” That was towards the end of October. I went on vacation, Thanksgiving, Christmas crazy.”  The evidence provided by American Airlines revealed Cleverly’s apparent bias from personal notes to Burke-Leon where he referred to Chinery as “exhibiting a whole new side of crazy” when she attempted to follow up with him about her concerns. His response, when asked why he said that was “Because this was an overwhelming time.”

The harassment claims brought forth against Jim Brown, to this day, have not been investigated by American Airlines. In his testimony, Brown states he has not had any interviews regarding the complaints made against him. At least four women complained to HR about Brown’s harassment. The outcomes of such investigations would determine whether or not there would be disciplinary action, and, according to AA’s policies, if an employee were in violation, it “would not be tolerated.” How is it possible that American Airlines, for years, has ignored women who came forward to complain along with those who provided affidavits testifying that they witnessed harassment by Brown?

The complaints against Brown, Datzer, Allen, and others, date back to 2012 and continue through 2016.  Despite the claims, since that time, three of the men have been promoted to various positions that include lucrative “special projects” committee work and training positions. Flight attendants are required to requalify annually in training to ensure he or she meets the FAA and company requirements to maintain continued employment. Both women have feared retaliation and for their jobs as the men they have accused of harassment have been placed in positions of authority where they potentially can pass or fail them.

AN APPEAL MAY BE FORTHCOMING

“American offered me a monetary settlement, but this has never been about money. It’s about employees suffering when policies created to protect them are ignored or selectively enforced by the company. These colleagues should be held to the same accountability that everyone else is held to. People should never be rewarded for engaging in workplace bullying and harassment” says Chinery.

No-Fault Divorce Does Not Violate Hindu Husband’s Free Exercise Rights

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

In Bhandaru v. Vukkum, (KY App., Aug. 19, 2016), a Kentucky appeals court rejected an argument that the state’s no-fault divorce law violates the free exercise rights of a Hindu husband.  The husband argued that his Hindu religion only permits divorce if some grounds for divorce are stated. The court concluded however that the divorce law is a law of general applicability and the state has a rational basis for it.  It thus survives a 1st Amendment challenge and the free exercise provisions of the Kentucky constitution offer no greater protection than those in the 1st Amendment.  The court also rejected the argument that under notions of comity it should have applied the Indian Hindu Marriage Act.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Reasoned Voting

This article is part of my posts on the economic system of distributism.  This is from practicaldistributism.blogspot.com which you can find here:

____________

Keeping in mind that this site does not engage in party politics, I still feel prompted to share something in the context of the up-coming election in the U.S. Although most of this will discuss the political climate in the U.S. I also send this out to any readers “across the pond” in the U.K. as they approach the very important vote on whether or not to remain in the E.U. Distributism is based on certain philosophical principles which originate in a scientific view of philosophy. It has become all too common in our political environments to use fear tactics to try and convince people to vote a certain way. These tactics can sound reasonable, but are truly an attempt to get you to abandon reason. Therefore, I want to present certain principles of reason as I think they apply to deciding how to vote.

The philosophical principles of reason which come down to us from the great minds of the past like Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas are those precepts which we must follow when applying reason to anything. The failure to do so will ultimately lead us to accepting absurd things. They are employed by all of our natural sciences. They are employed by all of our ethical reasoning. They are crucial to fulfilling our capabilities as rational beings. Unfortunately, some people throw around some of these principles in an incorrect or incomplete manner. Because we no longer learn true philosophy (even philosophy students seem to spend more time learning about philosophers – both good and bad – than about the actual science of philosophy) many people are ill equipped to see that these are false applications.

“Choosing the lesser of two evils”

This is a frequent claim used as an election draws near. In the U.S. It has long been used by pundits for the Republican party and has recently been used more by those of the Democrat party. The failure to nominate a candidate their voting base can really support has forced them to use this claim. They essentially say, “we know you think our candidate is bad, but he’s not as bad as their candidate.” This call to choose the “lesser” of two evils is usually followed by the next claim.

“A vote for x is really a vote for y”

This is a double-attack on your reason. Not only is your decision not to vote for their candidate or policy wrong, but you will somehow be guilty for the fact that the other candidate or policy won. In essence, the claim is that by voting other than the way they want, you are actually choosing what (presumably) neither of you want. This is used by both of the major parties in the U.S. as an attack against anyone who considers a third party option. It is based on the premise that the candidate or policy you want has no chance of winning, which leads us to the next claim.

“Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good”

Politics is the art of compromise, so why don’t you just compromise and vote for us? Since your position or candidate has no chance of actually winning, you should back down a little and vote for us. By doing so, you’ll get at least some of what you want instead of “wasting your vote.”

All of these arguments sound reasonable, but are actually not so, and a serious look at the principles of reason will reveal why.

When people use variants of the “lesser of two evils” argument, keep in mind that this is only a partial statement of the actual principle of reason. The actual principle is, “If one cannot avoid doing one of two acts, from both of which will follow an evil effect, one is obligated to choose the lesser of the two evils.”  Note that the premise here, which is fundamental to the entire principle, is that you cannot avoid doing one of the two acts. For this to apply in the context of an election, you would have to be constrained to only choose one of two candidates and have no other option – you must vote and you must vote for one of the only two candidates presented to you. Is this the actual case in our elections? Do you really only have two choices? I am not speaking of the so-called “practical” choices, by which is meant those choices generally accepted as having a chance to win. If there is in fact another option, then you are not limited by the constraint of the principle, so it simply doesn’t apply. Actually, if one were to insist on applying it to the case of an election, a reasoned expansion of this principle would be that, in the case of more than two choices, you must choose the one from which will follow the least evil effect. Don’t forget that, when electing candidates in the U.S., there is usually a blank line where you can write in the name of a better choice than the ones being presented.

This leads us to the next claim. Is it true that choosing something other than the two “practical” choices is equivalent to choosing one of them? The answer is obviously no. They say that the only choices are A and B because C has no chance of winning. Therefore, if you vote for C, you are effectively giving the election to whichever option they don’t want from the choices of A and B. This is nonsense. They are trying to shift the blame to you for the fact that they didn’t present a candidate you would want to support. They are trying to blame you for all the others who also didn’t want to support their view. This seems to be a mangling of the principle which states, “Things that are identical with a third are identical with each other.”Your actual responsibility in an election is to vote for the candidate or position you think should win. What you vote for represents what you choose regardless of the outcome. You are not to blame for the votes of others.

This leaves us with the only argument that actually deserves any consideration. “Don’t let the best become the enemy of the good” is inherently incorrect, but it can actually be applied in a way that doesn’t compromise the principles of reason. However, this argument must be properly understood in the light of those principles to determine if it actually applies to the current choices.

First of all, using the terms employed, the “good” must always be directed toward the “best” or it fails to be good. (“Every agent acts for the sake of an end.”) Therefore, one can accept the merely “good” for now, but only on the condition that is a movement toward the “best.” If this is not the case, then you would be violating the principle which states, “It is never lawful to reject a greater good for a lesser one.” The lesser good can only be accepted as a means to achieving the greater good, and never as an end itself. This is the essence of political compromise. Realizing that achieving the “best” may not currently be politically possible, achieving the “good” at this time with the intention of continuing to work for the “best” may be prudent.

Another consideration for this argument must be kept in mind. At what point does continual compromise from the “best” end up being an acceptance of the merely “good?” If you keep voting for an inadequate candidate on the grounds that “we can’t let the other party win,” what incentive will your party ever have to stop presenting inadequate candidates? If you continue to agree to legislation that falls short of what you really want, what are your chances of ever getting the legislation you really want? The pundits accuse those who choose to make a stand with their vote of wasting it, but the purpose of voting is to try and get the change you want. What vote could be more wasted than when you vote for something you don’t want?

At what point do we wake up to the realization that the political machines of these parties are actively engaged in saying what their base wants to hear just to secure votes, but don’t actually mean those things? How many times to we have to see them fail to even try to accomplish what they tell us they will before we accept the fact that it really isn’t all the fault of the other party? Remember that this sort of compromise is only acceptable if it is both prudential and will actually help to move from the “good” to the “best.”

A final consideration on this kind of compromise is that we have to examine the risks of the other side of the compromise. It is not enough to look at what we’ve gained, we need to look at what we’ve potentially lost through the compromise.“It is never lawful to take a risk with the right of another.” “It is never lawful to do an evil act to accomplish a good end.” “A good intention does not justify the use of an evil means for the end in view.” If your side of the compromise would fall into any of these categories, then the compromise cannot be made. Remember that your vote represents you. Your beliefs and values. “All human acts must tend towards the good of man.”

I am also reminded of something posted by Ryan Grant. There is another claim that says that you have no right to complain if you don’t vote. Of course, this is also nonsense. The officials of government have a moral responsibility in the exercise of their office. This is true even if those officials are not democratically elected. Citizens always have the right to complain about injustices regardless of how those officials came to hold their offices. In some election campaigns, there were movements of people who wanted a ballot option for “none of the above” as a way of indicating their dissatisfaction with all of the candidates. However, if you believe that elections are useless, because of the corruption of the political parties, the media, the voting process, or the ballot counting process, then why should you bother to vote even to say “none of the above?” Justice in government is a human right, not one just for those who engage in the system of voting.

Finally, I would like to point out how ironic it is when I hear Republican pundits heap scorn on those who would even consider a third party candidate. They seem to forget that their party was once the upstart third party in a political climate dominated by two other parties. The “Grand Old Party” is significantly younger than its chief rival. Why is it that they don’t address the growing popularity of third party candidates among their voter base? The Republican party was propelled to electoral victory because the voting public got sick and tired of the fact that neither of the major parties of the time were putting forth candidates and positions that truly reflected their views. Well, the same thing is happening today in both of the major parties. It is common for pundits of both parties to lay the blame for an electoral loss on the votes “stolen” by a third party candidate. The truth is that these votes were not stolen because they didn’t “belong” to any candidate or party. They never “owned” our votes and they shouldn’t take them for granted. If they want our votes, then they should present candidates and positions we want to support. If they want to keep our votes, then those candidates better use their time in office actually trying to accomplish what they were elected to accomplish. In other words, voters need to remember that parties and individual candidates need to earn our votes, and need to keep doing so. If they fail to do this, then why shouldn’t we look elsewhere and be proud of doing so?

In their attempts to convince others to vote for a particular candidate, many people are using arguments that invoke the fundamental principles of reason from the philosophical sciences. Unfortunately, many of these invocations use these arguments in an improper way. I addressed some of the most common in a recent article titled Reasoned Voting. I recently came across another use of a principle of reason in support of voting for a particular candidate which, in the interest clear reasoning, I would like to address in this follow-up to that article. The principle is known as “Double-Effect.”

The main goal of these articles is not to convince or dissuade people about voting for a particular candidate or party. It is to foster a better understanding of the principles being invoked because an improper use of these principles can have bad results.

“A small error in principle can lead to a big error in conclusion.”

Doing something, even something good, for a bad reason is not something we should be willing to accept because that would be acting contrary to our nature as rational beings. Therefore, even if you continue to support a given candidate, it should not be because of a faulty application of the principles of reason.

Where the principle commonly called “the lesser of two evils” is used to decide between two choices, the principle of double-effect only applies to a single choice. It is the method used to determine if a particular choice can or cannot be made. Thus, we have seen questions like “can a Catholic vote for Trump/Hillary?” Some commentators have attempted to answer these types of questions pertaining to the upcoming election using the principle of double-effect, but I believe these attempts are a misapplication of the principle.

The principle of double-effect answers the question of whether or not a specific single act is permissible when it is known that the act will produce not only a good, but also a bad effect. In the context of the political election it is proposed that, because we know a candidate will do both good and bad things, double-effect applies to the question of whether or not we may vote for a specific candidate. However, I believe that this is a misunderstanding of the principle as it applies to the question at hand.

The principle of double-effect addresses the following question.

Given an act that that produces two effects, one good and one bad, can we do the act?

 

To determine whether or not a particular act is permissible, the principle of double-effect applies four conditions to the act and its effects to arrive at an answer. If all of the conditions are met, then the principle of double-effect applies and the act may be done. The conditions which must be met for double-effect to apply are these.

 

The act itself must be good, or at least indifferent.
Both effects must proceed immediately from the act.
Only the good effect may be intended.
There must be due proportion between the good and bad effects.

The first two conditions determine whether or not double-effect applies to a particular act. If not, the act must be examined in light of other principles of reason. The second two conditions answer the question of whether or not an act to which double-effect does apply may or may not be done.

A fairly common example of how the principle is legitimately applied is the question amputating a limb infected with gangrene. Amputating the infected limb will remove the threat to life, but it will also result in the loss of the limb. Can we amputate the limb?

First: The act is amputation of the limb. This act is indifferent because the goodness or badness of it depends on the end toward which it is directed.
Second: Both effects will proceed immediately from the act. The moment the act is performed, both the threat to life and the limb will be removed.
Third: We only desire the good effect. If we could remove the gangrene without doing harm, or with less harm, we would do so.
Fourth: The good of preserving life is greater than the evil of losing a limb.

From this we can see that the principle of double-effect applies to this case, and that the reasonable conclusion is that we may amputate the limb.

Those who attempt to apply this principle as an argument for casting your vote for candidate X seem to do so on the basis of campaign promises. Even though it is likely that X will do some things we consider bad, X has promised to do other things we believe are good. We believe there is due proportion between the good and the bad that X will likely do while in office. Therefore, they conclude, the principle of double-effect shows that we can vote for candidate X. I will explain two reasons why I believe double-effect just doesn’t apply to the question of your vote. Note that I am only addressing the question of whether or not double-effect applies to the question of your vote, there are certainly other factors that do.

Double-effect applies specifically to “an act that produces two effects, one good and one bad.” We are examining the effects of specific individual act, so the act in question must clearly be the cause of those effects. In the case of amputation, both effects are produced by the act of amputation – they are both unavoidable effects of the act and the act is clearly the cause of those effects. Can we say the same thing about your vote? Is your vote the cause of both the good and the bad that candidate X will do while in office? The answer is obviously no. You cast your vote based on various things like campaign promises and position statements, but your vote does not actually cause any of those things to actually occur. Whether candidate X keeps or breaks every campaign promise, whether X does exactly what you expect or the opposite of what you expect can not reasonably be attributed as an effect of your vote. It is an effect of the free will of the candidate while in office.

I know that some will argue that your vote is the cause of the candidate getting elected and therefore, by extension, it is the cause of what the candidate does in office. I maintain that double-effect still doesn’t apply even if we accept the argument. The principle of double-effect states that both effects must proceed immediatelyfrom the act. This is clear in the case of amputation. Both effects are immediate. They happen simultaneously and there is no delay between the act as the cause and its effects. In regard to your vote, none of the effects can be considered to proceed immediately from your vote. Even if we were to say that the effects in question will take place over a period of time, they don’t even start to happen when you cast your vote. The candidate won’t even get sworn in for two months after you cast your vote. X could refuse to be sworn in or die before doing so. Amputation guarantees that both the limb and the disease will be removed. Your vote does not even guarantee that candidate X will win the election. Clearly, double-effect does not apply to the question of your vote.

In the end, as stated in the previous article, you must exercise your prudential judgement. Faced with the fact that the candidate is not ideal, is it prudential to vote for X rather than one of the several other available candidates? Is it prudential to (once again) compromise on what you really want and vote for X as a step toward a greater good to be more fully achieved in the future? There are many factors to consider for this important decision. I hope that these articles will help clarify the good and bad points some are making on the subject. These decisions are unfortunately difficult and complex. The principles of reason exist to assist us in understanding the factors that go into making a good decision. It does not help if our thinking gets muddled by the improper application of these principles, even if those doing it have the best intentions.

Originally posted on June 16, 2016 (part one: see here) and August 18, 2016 (part two: see here).

The Democrats Abandon Catholics

If you value religious education or life’s sanctity, you’re not welcome in the party.

Last Saturday’s feast of St. Patrick, the patron saint of our cathedral and archdiocese, reminded me of Archbishop John Hughes. As the first archbishop of New York (1842-64), “Dagger John” displayed dramatic reverence for the dignity of Irish immigrants. Thousands arrived daily in New York—penniless, starving and sometimes ill—only to be met with hostility, bigotry and injustice.

An immigrant himself, Hughes prophetically and vigorously defended their dignity. Because the schools at the time were hostile to these immigrants, he initiated Catholic schools to provide children with a good education sensitive to their religion and to prepare them as responsible, patriotic citizens. The schools worked. Many remain open to this day, their mission unchanged.

The second event was the recent funeral of a great African-American woman, Dolores Grier. A convert to Catholicism, she was named vice chancellor of the archdiocese three decades ago by Cardinal John O’Connor; she was the first layperson and first woman to hold the prestigious position. Grier was passionate about civil rights, especially the right to life of babies in the womb. She never missed an opportunity to defend, lovingly but forcefully, their right to life.

Grier attributed her pro-life sensitivity to the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who preached that abortion was an act of genocide against minorities. No wonder, she often observed, abortuaries were clustered in poor black and brown neighborhoods. The statistics today confirm her observation: In 2013 there were more black babies aborted in New York City (29,007) than were born here (24,758), according to a report from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

The values Archbishop Hughes and Dolores Grier cherished—the dignity and sanctity of human life, the importance of Catholic schools, the defense of a baby’s civil rights—were, and still are, widely embraced by Catholics. This often led Catholics to become loyal Democrats. I remember my own grandmother whispering to me, “We Catholics don’t trust those Republicans.”

Such is no longer the case, a cause of sadness to many Catholics, me included. The two causes so vigorously promoted by Hughes and Grier—the needs of poor and middle-class children in Catholic schools, and the right to life of the baby in the womb—largely have been rejected by the party of our youth. An esteemed pro-life Democrat in Illinois, Rep. Dan Lipinski, effectively was blacklisted by his own party. Last year, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez insisted that pro-life candidates have no place in the modern Democratic Party.

It is particularly chilly for us here in the state Hughes and Grier proudly called their earthly home. In recent years, some Democrats in the New York state Assembly repeatedly blocked education tax credit legislation, which would have helped middle-class and low-income families make the choice to select Catholic or other nonpublic schools for their children. Opposing the bill reduces the ability of fine Catholic schools across the state to continue their mission of serving the poor, many of them immigrants.

More sobering, what is already the most radical abortion license in the country may soon be even more morbidly expanded. For instance, under the proposed Reproductive Health Act, doctors would not be required to care for a baby who survives an abortion. The newborn simply would be allowed to die without any legal implications. And abortions would be legal up to the moment of birth.

I’m a pastor, not a politician, and I’ve certainly had spats and disappointments with politicians from both of America’s leading parties. But it saddens me, and weakens the democracy millions of Americans cherish, when the party that once embraced Catholics now slams the door on us.

To Archbishop Hughes, Dolores Grier, and Grandma Dolan, I’m sorry to have to write this. But not as sad as you are to know it is true.

Cardinal Dolan is archbishop of New York.

Appeared in the March 22, 2018, print edition of The Wall Street Journal and can be found here.

Yessource: Live in London, 12/4/01

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

My latest YesSource uploads can be found here:

American Airlines Flight Attendants Will Appeal Ruling On Facebook Sexual Harassment

The Melissa Chinery and Laura Medlin cases against American Airlines, cases currently being litigated by my firm, the Law Office of Faye Riva Cohen, P.C., have been featured in an article entitled “American Airlines Flight Attendants Will Appeal Ruling On Facebook Sexual Harassment,” in Forbes b published on September 12, 2018, which can be found here.

___________________________________

Two flight attendants who sued American Airlines, alleging that they were sexually harassed by male co-workers in Facebook postings, say they will appeal after a Philadelphia judge dismissed their cases.

Faye Riva Cohen, the Philadelphia attorney who represents flight attendants Melissa Chinery and Laura Medlin, said Tuesday that she will file in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in about a 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,” Cohen said.

“I feel [American] has no interest in social media policy,” Cohen said. “They just hang it out there.”

Cohen said the court did not adequately consider the new norms of the modern-day workplace, where social media has replaced lunchrooms and water coolers as sites where workers congregate, but bullying cannot be addressed face-to-face. “People are being bullied [and] there should be repercussions when that occurs,” she said, noting that flight attendants, who work with varying sets of co-workers, are particularly vulnerable.

The two flight attendants filed their case in March 2017 in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.  At the time, Chinery was based in Philadelphia while Laura Medlin was based in Charlotte. Chinery has since transferred to the Phoenix base. Their cases were consolidated.

The insults were posted within a Facebook group, whose membership is limited to American flight attendants, by a group of four to five Philadelphia-based male flight attendants.

Medlin said she was harassed with insulting terms including “sow,” while Chinery said she was referred to as “flipper,” a synonym for prostitute. Both women said the harassment was related to union activities in support of leaders whom their harassers opposed.

U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the cases on August 27, when he granted American’s motions for summary judgement.

In Chinery’s case, Robreno ruled, “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 cited behavior by the four men including posting a photograph of a broken record; referring to Chinery as “flipper,” saying the defendant “did not present a good appearance to passengers [and] allegedly posting a picture of a bedazzled vagina.”

“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. He was nominated for his post in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush.

Regarding Medlin’s case, Robreno wrote that she alleged sexual harassment on Facebook, between 2012 and 2015, including calling her 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.

American spokesman Matt Miller said the carrier, “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,” Miller said.

Suit Challenges Latin Cross In County Seal and Flag

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

A suit was filed in federal district court this week seeking to enjoin Lehigh County, Pennsylvania from continuing to display the current county seal and county flag that includes a Latin cross (partly hidden by a depiction of the county courthouse) as a prominent part of the design.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. County of Lehigh, (ED PA, filed 8/16/2016) contends that the cross amounts to an endorsement of Christianity, while the county Board of Commissioners says the cross was made part of the design to honor the original settlers of Lehigh County who were Christian. FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Yessource: 1991 YesYears rarities collection

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

My latest YesSource uploads can be found here:

Post Navigation