Rob Clifford

Sadly he can spin it however he wants and his base will follow which means the spineless republicans will stick with him.

I think you’re confusing the fact that “giving a reason” itself really had nothing to do with why they settled with that creep for his defamation claim. It’s the fact they posted it publicly (very boneheaded).

Anyway that’s my two cents thanks for the chat

Analogous to the workforce, this is why serious companies don’t just terminate with no explanation whatsoever. They put you on a performance review, they document your violations, etc.

Versus you have a Code of Conduct, you tell someone what was broken, even set up a little appeal process perhaps . . . All of that would have to be part of the pleading process and absent anything else would not pass the plausibility standard.

If an org bans someone with no stated reason whatsoever in our scenario it’s much easier to get past the pleading stage and into discovery. Quite literally there’s an important thing to ‘discover’ so to speak.

I googled this trouble you reference out of curiosity. The boneheaded decision they made was to issue a public statement as to why they banned the guy. If they had just put that in a private email to him he’d have had no leg to stand on at all. Publication to a third party is a required element.

Defamation with the fact pattern above is a nonstarter. But even private organizations are prohibited from discriminating against protected classes. A policy of banning people with no explanation whatsoever seems like a poor one in terms of shielding the org from those kinds of lawsuits.

That sounds interesting thanks I’ll have to look into that

Of course I wholeheartedly agree hopefully they are never in this position - I’m talking only a scenario where someone is operating in and faith and has the money to burn. Not as much of an occurrence as people think.

Let’s say I was a Muslim writer banned and given no explanation whatsoever. I could move ahead to discovery quite simply by alleging (1) protected class (2) adverse action and then all I’d need is some social media tweets about Gaza or something and I’d be in the door.

I wonder what their basis for that extraordinary premise is. When it comes to protected class discrimination, pleading a case past the initial 12(b)(6) hurdle is a very low bar.

That’s usually enough to get past the initial pleading stage as the courts don’t expect plaintiffs to have the proof when they file. But you say these orgs have lost a lot of cases doing it that way so their attorneys probably know better. I’m not familiar with the litigation you’re referencing.

It would be a far greater hardship in my opinion on the barred party if they were given a stated non-discriminatory reason. All they have to do is plead that they are a member of a protected class and that they suffered an adverse action.

This book is riveting and so, so infuriating. It follows 5 families in Atlanta who are struggling to remain housed and paints deeply compassionate portraits of each unit. It reads almost like a novel but is outstanding journalism

Criminalizing pregnancy: A record number of women were prosecuted the year after Dobbs They were targeted for substance use, miscarriages, and stillbirths, largely driven by fetal personhood laws.

Today marks the third anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

What's happened since?

A record number of women have been prosecuted. Pregnancy loss is now considered extremely suspicious, even when it has nothing to do with abortion.

Parenting Experts Warn Babies Can Hydroplane In As Little As One Inch Of Water

theonion.com/parenti...

Someone lacking a good faith basis could just allege they were banned for no stated reason, they’re a member of a protected class, and that’s enough to move on to discovery. They would cover themselves more by just saying there’s an COC and here’s the specific violation we determined you broke

That approach of not giving any reason can actually be more damaging as private organizations are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race/sex/religion etc.

I disagree that she minimizes physical/sexual abuse or that her piece is about that at all.

Emotional abuse on the other hand you may have a point.

Yes that was her actual thesis which I came here to read criticisms of. Instead it was just accounts accusing her of defending parental sexual/physical abuse.

Well she probably assumed people would read the entire op-ed. Which I admit is asking a lot of people.

Bad faith reading. She goes on to say in the same piece that cutting off for physical abuse is indisputably a good thing.

we have a bingo.

Sure do

Seems inefficient

That’s great, how did they catch him? I figured modern technology made these clowns untouchable

Thank you. It’s so confusing. I keep reading the president of Colombia “folded.”

Right exactly.